The Use of COVID-19 Mobile Apps in Connecting Patients with Primary Healthcare in 30 Countries: Eurodata Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated changes in European healthcare systems, with a significant proportion of COVID-19 cases being managed on an outpatient basis in primary healthcare (PHC). To alleviate the burden on healthcare facilities, many European countries developed contact-tracing apps and symptom checkers to identify potential cases. As the pandemic evolved, the European Union introduced the Digital COVID-19 Certificate for travel, which relies on vaccination, recent recovery, or negative test results. However, the integration between these apps and PHC has not been thoroughly explored in Europe. OBJECTIVE: To describe if governmental COVID-19 apps allowed COVID-19 patients to connect with PHC through their apps in Europe and to examine how the Digital COVID-19 Certificate was obtained. METHODOLOGY: Design and setting: Retrospective descriptive study in PHC in 30 European countries. An ad hoc, semi-structured questionnaire was developed to collect country-specific data on primary healthcare activity during the COVID-19 pandemic and the use of information technology tools to support medical care from 15 March 2020 to 31 August 2021. Key informants belong to the WONCA Europe network (World Organization of Family Doctors). The data were collected from relevant and reliable official sources, such as governmental websites and guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient's first contact with health system, governmental COVID-19 app (name and function), Digital COVID-19 Certification, COVID-19 app connection with PHC. RESULTS: Primary care was the first point of care for suspected COVID-19 patients in 28 countries, and 24 countries developed apps to complement classical medical care. The most frequently developed app was for tracing COVID-19 cases (24 countries), followed by the Digital COVID-19 Certificate app (17 countries). Bulgaria, Italy, Serbia, North Macedonia, and Romania had interoperability between PHC and COVID-19 apps, and Poland and Romania's apps considered social needs. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 apps were widely created during the first pandemic year. Contact tracing was the most frequent function found in the registered apps. Connection with PHC was scarcely developed. In future pandemics, connections between health system levels should be guaranteed to develop and implement effective strategies for managing diseases.

Exploring the accessibility of primary health care data in Europe's COVID-19 response: developing key indicators for managing future pandemics (Eurodata study).

BACKGROUND: Primary Health Care (PHC) plays a crucial role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, with only 8% of cases requiring hospitalization. However, PHC COVID-19 data often goes unnoticed on European government dashboards and in media discussions. This project aims to examine official information on PHC patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, with specific objectives: (1) Describe PHC's clinical pathways for acute COVID-19 cases, including long-term care facilities, (2) Describe PHC COVID-19 pandemic indicators, (3) Develop COVID-19 PHC activity indicators, (4) Explain PHC's role in vaccination strategies, and (5) Create a PHC contingency plan for future pandemics. METHODS: A mixed-method study will employ two online questionnaires to gather retrospective PHC data on COVID-19 management and PHC involvement in vaccination strategies. Validation will occur through focus group discussions with medical and public health (PH) experts. A two-wave Delphi survey will establish a European PHC indicators dashboard for future pandemics. Additionally, a coordinated health system action plan involving PHC, secondary care, and PH will be devised to address future pandemic scenarios. ANALYSIS: Quantitative data will be analysed using STATA v16.0 for descriptive and multivariate analyses. Qualitative data will be collected through peer-reviewed questionnaires and content analysis of focus group discussions. A Delphi survey and multiple focus groups will be employed to achieve consensus on PHC indicators and a common European health system response plan for future pandemics. The Eurodata research group involving researchers from 28 European countries support the development. DISCUSSION: While PHC manages most COVID-19 acute cases, data remains limited in many European countries. This study collects data from numerous countries, offering a comprehensive perspective on PHC's role during the pandemic in Europe. It pioneers the development of a PHC dashboard and health system plan for pandemics in Europe. These results may prove invaluable in future pandemics. However, data may have biases due to key informants' involvement and may not fully represent all European GP practices. PHC has a significant role in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic, as most of the cases are mild or moderate and only 8% needed hospitalization. However, PHC COVID-19 activity data is invisible on governments' daily dashboards in Europe, often overlooked in media and public debates.

Primary care indicators for disease burden, monitoring and surveillance of COVID-19 in 31 European countries: Eurodata Study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of patients received ambulatory treatment, highlighting the importance of primary health care (PHC). However, there is limited knowledge regarding PHC workload in Europe during this period. The utilization of COVID-19 PHC indicators could facilitate the efficient monitoring and coordination of the pandemic response. The objective of this study is to describe PHC indicators for disease surveillance and monitoring of COVID-19's impact in Europe. METHODS: Descriptive, cross-sectional study employing data obtained through a semi-structured ad hoc questionnaire, which was collectively agreed upon by all participants. The study encompasses PHC settings in 31 European countries from March 2020 to August 2021. Key-informants from each country answered the questionnaire. Main outcome: the identification of any indicator used to describe PHC COVID-19 activity. RESULTS: Out of the 31 countries surveyed, data on PHC information were obtained from 14. The principal indicators were: total number of cases within PHC (Belarus, Cyprus, Italy, Romania and Spain), number of follow-up cases (Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Spain and Turkey), GP's COVID-19 tests referrals (Poland), proportion of COVID-19 cases among respiratory illnesses consultations (Norway and France), sick leaves issued by GPs (Romania and Spain) and examination and complementary tests (Cyprus). All COVID-19 cases were attended in PHC in Belarus and Italy. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic exposes a crucial deficiency in preparedness for infectious diseases in European health systems highlighting the inconsistent recording of indicators within PHC organizations. PHC standardized indicators and public data accessibility are urgently needed, conforming the foundation for an effective European-level health services response framework against future pandemics.

Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta-research study.

Risk of bias (RoB) assessment is essential to the systematic review methodology. The new version of the Cochrane RoB tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was published in 2019 to address limitations identified since the first version of the tool was published in 2008 and to increase the reliability of assessments. This study analyzed the frequency of usage of the RoB 2 and the adequacy of reporting the RoB 2 assessments in non-Cochrane reviews published in 2020. This meta-research study included non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020. For the reviews that used the RoB 2 tool, we analyzed the reporting of the RoB 2 assessment. Among 3880 included reviews, the Cochrane RoB 1 tool was the most frequently used (N = 2228; 57.4%), followed by the Cochrane RoB 2 tool (N = 267; 6.9%). From 267 reviews that reported using the RoB 2 tool, 213 (79.8%) actually used it. In 26 (12.2%) reviews, erroneous statements were used to indicate the RoB 2 assessment. Only 20 (9.4%) reviews presented a complete RoB 2 assessment with a detailed table of answers to all signaling questions. The judgment of risk of bias by the RoB 2 tool was not justified by a comment in 158 (74.2%) reviews. Only in 33 (14.5%) of reviews the judgment in all domains was justified in the accompanying comment. In most reviews (81.7%), the RoB was inadequately assessed at the study level. In conclusion, the majority of non-Cochrane reviews published in 2020 still used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. Many reviews used the RoB 2 tool inadequately. Further studies about the uptake and the use of the RoB 2 tool are needed.

The role of primary health care in long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in 30 European countries: a retrospective descriptive study (Eurodata study).

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Primary health care (PHC) supported long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in attending COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study is to describe the role of PHC in LTCFs in Europe during the early phase of the pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective descriptive study from 30 European countries using data from September 2020 collected with an ad hoc semi-structured questionnaire. Related variables are SARS-CoV-2 testing, contact tracing, follow-up, additional testing, and patient care. RESULTS: Twenty-six out of the 30 European countries had PHC involvement in LTCFs during the COVID-19 pandemic. PHC participated in initial medical care in 22 countries, while, in 15, PHC was responsible for SARS-CoV-2 test along with other institutions. Supervision of individuals in isolation was carried out mostly by LTCF staff, but physical examination or symptom's follow-up was performed mainly by PHC. CONCLUSION: PHC has participated in COVID-19 pandemic assistance in LTCFs in coordination with LTCF staff, public health officers, and hospitals.

Clinical pathway of COVID-19 patients in primary health care in 30 European countries: Eurodata study.

BACKGROUND: Most COVID-19 patients were treated in primary health care (PHC) in Europe. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the scope of PHC workflow during the COVID-19 pandemic emphasising similarities and differences of patient's clinical pathways in Europe. METHODS: Descriptive, cross-sectional study with data acquired through a semi-structured questionnaire in PHC in 30 European countries, created ad hoc and agreed upon among all researchers who participated in the study. GPs from each country answered the approved questionnaire. Main variable: PHC COVID-19 acute clinical pathway. All variables were collected from each country as of September 2020. RESULTS: COVID-19 clinics in PHC facilities were organised in 8/30. Case detection and testing were performed in PHC in 27/30 countries. RT-PCR and lateral flow tests were performed in PHC in 23/30, free of charge with a medical prescription. Contact tracing was performed mainly by public health authorities. Mandatory isolation ranged from 5 to 14 days. Sick leave certification was given exclusively by GPs in 21/30 countries. Patient hotels or other resources to isolate patients were available in 12/30. Follow-up to monitor the symptoms and/or new complementary tests was made mainly by phone call (27/30). Chest X-ray and phlebotomy were performed in PHC in 18/30 and 23/30 countries, respectively. Oxygen and low-molecular-weight heparin were available in PHC (21/30). CONCLUSION: In Europe PHC participated in many steps to diagnose, treat and monitor COVID-19 patients. Differences among countries might be addressed at European level for the management of future pandemics.

Addressing Challenges When Applying GRADE to Public Health Guidelines: A Scoping Review Protocol and Pilot Analysis.

This is a protocol for a scoping review that aims to determine how guideline authors using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach have addressed previously identified challenges related to public health. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews will be followed. We will search and screen titles of guidelines for all languages published in 2013-2021 in: the GIN library, BIGG database, Epistemonikos GRADE guidelines repository, GRADEpro Database, MAGICapp, NICE and WHO websites. Two reviewers will independently screen full texts of the documents identified. The following information will be extracted: methods used for identifying different stakeholders and incorporating their perspectives; methods for identification and prioritization of non-health outcomes; methods for determining thresholds for decision-making; methods for incorporating and grading evidence from non-randomized studies; methods for addressing concerns with conditional recommendations in public health; methods for reaching consensus; additional methodological concerns; and any modifications made to GRADE. A combination of directed content analysis and descriptive statistics will be used for data analysis, and the findings presented narratively in a tabular and graphical form. In this protocol, we present the pilot results from 13 identified eligible guidelines issued between January and August 2021. We will publish the full review results when they become available.