ArticleBMC public health2025
Evaluation of the COVID-19 testing strategy in PHC of a high-vulnerability health district in Brazil, 2020-2022.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsidering the potential role of primary health care (PHC) in the response to COVID-19, a formative evaluation (FE) was carried out between December 2021 and February 2022 to understand its work process against COVID-19 in a high-vulnerability health district in Brazil, identifying the difficulties in carrying out tests and the best practices for the implementation of the intervention "Expansion of testing, quarantine, e-health and telemonitoring strategies to combat COVID-19 in Brazil" (TQT).
methodsFEs are used to guide the implementation of health interventions. This FE was based on a situational diagnosis of the territories and PHC health units of the health district under study, with approximately 400,000 inhabitants, in which the TQT Project would later be implemented. A qualitative study was conducted based on 22 semistructured interviews and three focus groups (FGs) involving 19 PHC professionals. The interviews and FGs were analysed in terms of their thematic content.
resultsThere was a lack of coordination in implementing actions; COVID-19 testing was concentrated in a few PHC units, generating work overload and weakness of other health programs in these units; the health units' physical structure was inadequate, and human resources were insufficient; and no criteria were identified for defining the number of tests offered per day per unit.
conclusionsThe FE identified barriers to testing and supported the design of the TQT, including the adaptations needed to implement actions. The concentration of testing in a few units is an important barrier to access; it is suggested that testing actions should be deconcentrated in as many health units as possible.
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.