Patient Representatives' Perspectives on Healthcare at the Time of COVID-19 and Suggestions for Care Redesign After the Pandemic: A Qualitative Study in Twenty-Four Countries.

OBJECTIVE: Several comments and recommendations called to embed better the patients' and public voice in healthcare policymaking. Still, no studies captured patients' bottom-up perspectives regarding healthcare at the time of COVID-19 at a micro-level in a range of different countries. We, therefore, explored the perspectives of patient representatives in all six World Health Organisation (WHO) regions and extracted suggestions for care redesign after the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patient representatives until saturation. Thematic analysis followed a modified form of meaning condensation. We established rigour by transcript checking, inter-coder agreement, quote variation and standardised reporting. RESULTS: Disadvantaged people experienced an unprecedented inequity in healthcare from limited access to physical violence. The narratives revealed the extent of this inequity, but also opportunities for health workers to act and improve. Stigmatisation from COVID-19 differed between cultures and countries and ranged from none to feeling "ashamed" and "totally bashed". While experienced as indispensable in the future, patients refused telehealth when they were given "bad news", such as having an eye removed because of melanoma, and in end-of-life care. Patient representatives redefined their role and became indispensable influencers throughout the pandemic and beyond. CONCLUSION: We reached out to patient representatives with diverse perspectives, including those who represent minorities and marginalised patient populations. Since preferences and personal meanings drive behaviour and could be foundations for targeted interventions, they must be considered in all groups of people to increase society's resilience as a whole. Future healthcare should tackle inequity, address stigmatisation and consider patients' narratives to optimize telemedicine.

The lockdown and its consequences-Perspectives and needs of people at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 : Results from a qualitative longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of knowledge on how people at increased risk of severe illness from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experienced the infection control measures. This study aimed to explore their perspectives and needs during the coronavirus outbreak. METHODS: A qualitative longitudinal interview study was conducted in Austria during lockdown due to COVID-19 containment and afterwards. People older than 65 years of age and/or affected by a chronic medical condition participated in individual telephone interviews at two time points. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data and saturation was defined as no new emerging concepts in at least 10 subsequent interviews. RESULTS: Thematic saturation was reached when 33 individuals (75.8% female, mean age ± standard deviation [SD] 73.7±10.9 years) were included. A total of 44 lower level concepts were extracted and summarized into 6 higher level concepts. They included (i) a general positive attitude toward COVID-19 measures, (ii) challenges of being isolated from the community, (iii) deterioration of health status, (iv) difficulties with measures due to their health condition, (v) lack of physical contact and (vi) lack of information versus overload. Participants suggested environmental adaptations for strengthening resilience in people at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Strategies and interventions are needed to support people at risk under pandemic conditions. Their perceptions and needs should be addressed to reduce the potential deterioration of health conditions and ensure well-being even during prolonged periods of crisis.

Rheumatological care in rural areas : The Rheuma-Bus project 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the medical care of individuals in rural areas during a public health awareness project on musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). METHODS: A tour bus was adapted to accommodate rheumatological consultations at widely accessible sites in 16 towns, providing individual medical advice with respect to MSD. The participating rheumatologists assessed the nature (e.g. inflammatory/non inflammatory), extent and duration of MSD and, where possible, made a tentative diagnosis and gave further advice on the course of action. In addition, age, sex and pre-existing care were recorded. All individuals were asked to assess their own severity of pain using a numeric ordinal scale from "no" (0) to "extreme" (10). RESULTS: A total of 647 individuals visited the service. Median current pain intensity was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3-6), mean 4.9 (standard deviation [SD] 2.3). Osteoarthritis was suspected in 381 clients (59.6%), inflammatory rheumatic disease in 247 (38.7%), and in 104 (16.3%) other diseases. 307 (50%) were treated by a GP, 95 (15.5%) were under orthopaedic care, 204 (33.2%) under rheumatological care and 81 (13.1%) under supervision of other specialists. 104 clients (17%) had never consulted a physician for their MSD symptoms before. 27 (4.2%) of all the clients had a newly detected inflammatory rheumatic disease and 62 (9.6%) patients with suspected inflammatory rheumatic disease were not under previous rheumatological care. CONCLUSION: The findings showed that there is still a lot of negligence in awareness and knowledge of rheumatic diseases, at least in rural areas.