Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39173045›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

Changes in reasons for visits to primary care after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic: An international comparative study by the International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID).

Karen Tu, María C Lapadula, Jemisha Apajee, Angela Ortigoza Bonilla, Valborg Baste, María S Cuba-Fuentes, Simon de Lusignan, Signe Flottorp, Gabriela Gaona, Lay Hoon Goh and 15 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

25 authors.

Karen TuDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
María C LapadulaDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Jemisha ApajeeDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Angela Ortigoza BonillaDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Valborg BasteNational Centre for Emergency Primary Health Care, NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bergen, Norway.
María S Cuba-FuentesCenter for Research in Primary Health Care (CINAPS), Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7394-7092
Simon de LusignanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8553-2641
Signe FlottorpNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Gabriela GaonaDARTNet Institute, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America.
Lay Hoon GohDivision of Family Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1536-3050
Christine M HallinanDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0471-4444
Robert S KristianssonDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Adrian LaughlinDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Zhuo LiDepartment of Family Medicine and Primary Care, University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Zheng J LingDivision of Family Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9584-4473
Jo-Anne Manski-NankervisDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2153-3482
Amy P P NgDepartment of Family Medicine and Primary Care, University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3867-6447
Luciano F ScattiniMinistry of Health of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Javier Silva-ValenciaNorth York General Hospital, Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5982-2821
Wilson D PaceDARTNet Institute, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1699-5471
Knut-Arne WensaasResearch Unit for General Practice, NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS, Bergen, Norway.
William C W WongDepartment of Family Medicine and Primary Care, University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Paula L ZingoniMinistry of Health of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
John M WestfallDARTNet Institute, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1070-0268
INTRePID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped healthcare delivery worldwide.

objectiveTo explore potential changes in the reasons for visits and modality of care in primary care settings through the International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID).

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, retrospective study from 2018-2021. We examined visit volume, modality, and reasons for visits to primary care in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Peru, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, and the USA. The analysis involved a comparison between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods.

resultsThere were more than 215 million visits from over 38 million patients during the study period in INTRePID primary care settings. Most INTRePID countries experienced a decline in monthly visit rates during the first year of the pandemic, with rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) ranging from RR:0.57 (95%CI:0.49-0.66) to RR:0.90 (95%CI:0.83-0.98), except for in Canada (RR:0.99, 95%CI:0.94-1.05) and Norway (RR:1.00, 95%CI:0.92-1.10), where rates remained stable and in Australia where rates increased (RR:1.19, 95%CI:1.11-1.28). Argentina, China, and Singapore had limited or no adoption of virtual care, whereas the remaining INTRePID countries varied in the extent of virtual care utilization. In Peru, virtual visits accounted for 7.34% (95%CI:7.33%-7.35%) of all interactions in the initial year of the pandemic, dipping to 5.22% (95%CI:5.21%-5.23%) in the subsequent year. However, in Canada 75.30% (95%CI:75.20%-75.40%) of the visits in the first year were virtual, decreasing to 62.77% (95%CI:62.66%-62.88%) in the second year. Diabetes, hypertension and/or hyperlipidemia and general health exams were in the top 10 reasons for visits in 2019 for all countries. Anxiety, depression and/or other mental health related reasons were among the top 10 reasons for virtual visits in all countries that had virtual care.

conclusionsThe pandemic resulted in changes in reasons for visits to primary care, with virtual care mitigating visit volume disruptions in many countries.

Identifiers

PMID39173045
PMCPMC11341054

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.