Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38553722›Full record

ArticleRespiratory research2024

Patients' evaluation of aftercare following hospitalization for COVID-19: satisfaction and unmet needs.

Julia C Berentschot, Willemijn A de Ridder, L Martine Bek, Majanka H Heijenbrok-Kal, Gert-Jan Braunstahl, Sylvia C Remerie, Yvonne Stuip, Gerard M Ribbers, Joachim G J V Aerts, Erwin Ista and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Respiratory research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Julia C BerentschotDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. j.berentschot@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4640-9947
Willemijn A de RidderDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
L Martine BekDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8257-7070
Majanka H Heijenbrok-KalDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2982-4404
Gert-Jan BraunstahlDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Franciscus Gasthuis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sylvia C RemerieRijndam Rehabilitation, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Yvonne StuipZorghoek Bergschenhoek, Bergschenhoek, The Netherlands.
Gerard M RibbersDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6114-349X
Joachim G J V AertsDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6662-2951
Erwin IstaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Nursing Science, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1257-3108
Merel E HellemonsDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6666-5027
Rita J G van den Berg-EmonsDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8408-0500
CO-FLOW Collaboration Group

Funding

ZonMw 10430022010026
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient experiences with COVID-19 aftercare remain largely unknown. We evaluated COVID-19 aftercare from a patient perspective one year after hospitalization, assessing satisfaction and its associated factors, and unmet needs.

methodsThe Satisfaction with COVID-19 Aftercare Questionnaire (SCAQ) was developed as part of a multicenter prospective cohort study and administered one year after hospital discharge. The SCAQ assesses (1) patient satisfaction, comprising information provision, rehabilitation, follow-up by hospitals and general practitioners (GPs), the most important aftercare topics, and overall satisfaction, and (2) unmet needs.

results487/561 (87%) COVID-19 patients completed the SCAQ, all had been discharged from the hospital between March 2020 and May 2021. Among responders, the median age of patients was 60 (IQR 54-67) years, 338 (69%) were male, and the median length of stay in the hospital was 13 (6-27) days. Patients were least satisfied with information on who could be contacted with questions when health problems arise (59% satisfied or very satisfied). Many patients (75%) received rehabilitation, most frequently community-based (70%). Across the different community-based therapies, ≥ 60% of patients were satisfied with shared-decision making and ≥ 70% with the received therapy; a majority (≥ 79%) indicated a preference for receiving the same therapy again if needed. Regarding follow-up by hospitals, 86% of patients received this follow-up, most frequently visiting a pulmonologist (96%), being generally satisfied with the received aftercare. Aftercare from GPs was received by 39% of patients, with 88% being satisfied with the GP's availability and 79% with referral to appropriate aftercare providers. Patients (> 50%) considered information-related items most important in aftercare. Overall, patients rated their satisfaction with aftercare 8/10 (7-9) points. Those who received medical rehabilitation (versus no rehabilitation, adjusted beta 0.61 [95%CI 0.11 to 1.11], p = 0.02) or aftercare by a hospital medical specialist (1.1 [0.46 to 1.64], p < 0.001) or GP (0.39 [0.053 to 0.72], p = 0.023) reported significantly higher satisfaction than those without such aftercare. Unmet needs were reported by 35% of patients, with lack of information (20%) and lack of additional aftercare and/or involvement of their GP (19%) being the most frequently reported.

conclusionDespite the forced quick development of COVID-19 aftercare, patients were generally satisfied. Follow-up by healthcare professionals and information provision is important to meet patients' aftercare needs.

Indexed as

AftercareCOVID-19AgedFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionProspective StudiesAftercareCOVID-19Healthcare servicesImplementationLong COVIDPatient satisfactionUnmet needs

Identifiers

PMID38553722
PMCPMC10981299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.