ArticleBMC health services research2024
Responding to COVID-19: an exploration of EU country responses and directions for further research.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Change of antidepressant utilization in children, adolescents and young adults in Europe before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Unveiling Health Security Patterns in the European Union through a Hybrid Entropy-CoCoSo and K-Means Clustering Framework.F1000Research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDuring COVID-19, scientists advising policymakers were forced to deal with high uncertainty and risks in an environment of unknowns. Evidence on which policies and measures were effective in responding to the pandemic remains underdeveloped to answer the key question 'what worked and why?'. This study aims to provide a basis for studies to go further to answer this critical question, by starting to look efficacy or how countries ensured that health services remained available and what measures were enacted to protect and treat their populations and workers.
methodsWe applied a three-phase sequential mixed methods design. In phase one, we started with a qualitative content analysis of the EU Country Profile reports to retrieve and analyse data on COVID-19 responses taken by 29 countries in the European region. Phase two is the step of data transformation, converting qualitative data into numerical codes that can be statistically analysed, which are then used in a quantitative cross-national comparative analysis that comprises phase three. The quantifying process resulted in a numerical indicator to measure the 'response efficacy' of the 29 countries, which is used in phase three's association of the response measure with country performance indicators that were derived from European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) COVID-19 case and death rate data.
resultsThrough comparing the frequency of COVID-19 measures taken, we found that many countries in the European region undertook similar actions but with differing effects. The cross-national analysis revealed an expected relationship: a lower COVID-19 response efficacy appeared to be related to a higher case and death rates. Still, marked variation for countries with similar response efficacy indicators was found, signalling that the combination and sequence of implementation of COVID-19 responses is possibly just as important as their efficacy in terms of which response measures were implemented.
conclusionsMany European countries employed similar COVID-19 measures but still had a wide variation in their case and death rates. To unravel the question 'what worked and why?', we suggest directions from which more refined research can be designed that will eventually contribute to mitigate the impact of future pandemics and to be better prepared for their economic and human burden.
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.