ArticleEuropean journal of public health2025
Identifying essential COVID-19 indicators for primary healthcare through Delphi analysis in 31 European countries: Eurodata eDelphi study.
Article in European journal of 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
48 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the essential role of primary healthcare (PHC) in epidemiological surveillance and public health decision-making. Across Europe, the integration of electronic health records (EHRs) and the sentinel networks have been pivotal in monitoring COVID-19. However, the lack of standardized PHC indicators for COVID-19 hinders the comparability of data among countries.
objectiveTo establish a consensus on a set of standardized PHC activity indicators related to the COVID-19 pandemic for 31 countries, enhancing the capability of health authorities to make informed decisions and prepare for future health crises.
methodsA two-round eDelphi study was conducted using a structured web-based survey, following the CREDES guidelines, to achieve consensus among a panel of 164 experts from the Eurodata study. 86 Indicators were selected based on their availability during the current pandemic, with participants rating the relevance and utility of proposed indicators.
resultsOf the 22 initial indicators, seven received consensuses for inclusion, while two remained contentious after the second round. The study found significant discrepancies in the awareness of sentinel networks and accessibility to PHC data. The consensus emphasized the necessity for indicators to be standardized, reproducible, and easily extractable from databases, with recommendations for disaggregation by age, sex, and vaccination status.
conclusionKey COVID-19 indicators for PHC were identified, reflecting a consensus among healthcare professionals. Further cooperation between PHC providers and national public health authorities is warranted both on the national and the international level to harmonized healthcare indicators in response to future health emergencies.
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.