ArticlePloS one2023
Evaluation of primary health care by users during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Family health coverage and care reorganization during the COVID-19 pandemic.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the primary health care (PHC) attributes and associated factors during the COVID-19 pandemic using the perspective of users.
methodsThis cross-sectional, quantitative study included 422 PHC users from 96 Family Health Teams in a city in Brazil. The assessment used the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCATool) and a structured questionnaire on the sociodemographic and epidemiological characteristics of users and basic health units (BHU). The Person's chi-square test was used to analyze the association between high overall scores in PCATool and characteristics of users and BHU. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) with a 95% confidence interval were also calculated. Poisson regression and Rao Scott's Chi-square test were used to estimate crude PR.
resultsMost users were aged 30 to 39 years (26.3%), women (75.4%), registered at the BHU for over ten years (59.5%), and had incomplete secondary education (30.6%). The mean of PHC essential attributes and overall scores were low (6.10 ± 0.81 and 5.78 ± 0.77, respectively). "First-contact care-use" received the highest score (9.22 ± 1.62), while "first-contact care-accessibility" received the lowest (2.82 ± 0.90). High overall scores were associated with an average employment time of professionals (doctors and nurses) at the BHU (PR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.17-1.48; p < 0.001) and lower educational level of users (PR = 1.71; 95% CI 1.54-1.90; p < 0.001.
conclusion"First-contact care-use" was the best evaluated, while "first-contact care-accessibility" was the worst. High scores were associated with a lower educational level of users and BHU with more experienced professionals.
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.