ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023
Monitoring Surveys in the Context of Covid-19, Published in Belgium and France, in the Light of Health Democracy.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Qualitative Interview Study on Expanded Access Clinical Trials for Compassionate Use in Japan.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The management of a pandemic, such as COVID-19, requires the full participation of citizens. This recent situation has revealed the undermining of user participation in the decision-making process. Thus, this study aims to assess the involvement of users in the design and administration of surveys for health crisis monitoring and to stimulate reflection on information processes shared upstream during the decision-making process. Methods: A literature search was conducted on population monitoring surveys published during the first containment period in Belgium and France between April and May 2020. The selected studies were first analyzed according to a reading grid based on the criteria proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) for monitoring populations and supplemented by data from a descriptive analysis of the selected studies. Second, with the objective of specifically evaluating the involvement of users in monitoring surveys, this study evaluated the surveys according to the following parameters: content of a study based on themes presented in surveys; inclusion of health literacy (HL); and factors of commitment of the respondents to the survey. Results: A total of 45 studies were selected for final analysis. The majority of the surveys focused on the effect of COVID-19 on well-being. Furthermore, analysis indicated that, in summary, the HL of people concerned as well as the involvement of respondents is poorly considered, which remains limited in terms of the design and administration of the surveys. Discussion: Although the principles of health democracy seemed to have been established, the exceptional regime induced by the epidemic overlooked the observance of such principles. This result indicates the need to reconsider the participation of citizens as real partners in care, including health crisis management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.