ArticleBMJ open2025
Investigating changes in user and diagnostic patterns in general practice during the COVID pandemic in 2020: a cohort study using Danish patient data from two consecutive years before and during the pandemic.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Primary Care Utilisation: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Utilisation of primary healthcare services by patients with hypertension before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic in Turku, Finland-are digital services creating disparity?Scandinavian journal of public health · 2026Article
- "Loops and hurdles": secondary analysis of patient interview data to explore the experience of patient access to UK general practice.BMC primary care · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic induced significant changes in access policies to general practice (GP) in most countries. This study aimed to compare and discuss changes in the diagnostic patterns and GP procedures before and during the pandemic. DESIGN AND
settingA register study including data from 11 Danish GP clinics.
participantsEnlisted patients from GP followed 1 year before (February 2019 to January 2020; n=48 650) and 1 year during (April 2020 to March 2021; n=47 207) the COVID-19 pandemic. OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic patterns, consultation type (face-to-face, email and phone), contact persons (GP or GP staff) and patient characteristics.
resultsThe average number of contacts with GP increased from 6.3 contacts per year per patient before the pandemic to 8.3 annual contacts during the pandemic (p<0.01). The proportion of contacts handled face-to-face remained around 53%; however, email contacts more than doubled in number and reached 26% of all contacts during the pandemic. Before the pandemic, GPs handled 36% of all patient contacts. This decreased to 22% during the pandemic, and for some diagnostic groups, the GP staff now handled 90% of the patients. The reduced GP contacts were mainly in email and phone contacts, whereas face-to-face consultations by the GPs seem to have been given priority. No reduction was observed in the absolute number of contacts with diagnoses related to the cardiovascular system or diabetes type 2; however, the proportion of contacts related to skin diseases, upper/lower airway symptoms and preventive care consultations was reduced (p<0.01).
conclusionAlthough these findings cannot prove causality, they demonstrate significant changes in diagnostic patterns, balance between different contact types, and responsible contact persons during the pandemic. Changes mean that it has become a significantly different product that GPs offer their patients. The coming years will show whether these changes remain, whether the quality of treatment and care is the same and whether the changed balance in patient handling (GP or GP staff) is experienced as beneficial by the patients.
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.