Recruitment, data collection, participation rate, and representativeness of the international cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study across 38 countries.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment for surveys has been a great challenge, especially in general practice. METHODS: Here, we reported recruitment strategies, data collection, participation rates (PR) and representativeness of the PRICOV-19 study, an international comparative, cross-sectional, online survey among general practices (GP practices) in 37 European countries and Israel. RESULTS: Nine (24%) countries reported a published invitation; 19 (50%) had direct contact with all GPs/GP practices; 19 (50%) contacted a sample of GPs /GP practices; and 7 (18%) used another invitation strategy. The median participation rate was 22% (IQR = 10%, 28%). Multiple invitation strategies (P-value 0.93) and multiple strategies to increase PR (P-value 0.64) were not correlated with the PR. GP practices in (semi-) rural areas, GP practices serving more than 10,000 patients, and group practices were over-represented (P-value < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between the PR and strength of the primary care (PC) system [Spearman's r 0.13, 95% CI (-0.24, 0.46); P-value 0.49]; the COVID-19 morbidity [Spearman's r 0.19, 95% CI (-0.14, 0.49); P-value 0.24], or COVID-19 mortality [Spearman's r 0.19, 95% CI (-0.02, 0.58); P-value 0.06] during the three months before country-specific study commencement. CONCLUSION: Our main contribution here was to describe the survey recruitment and representativeness of PRICOV-19, an important and novel study.

Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Led to Changes in the Tasks of the Primary Care Workforce? An International Survey among General Practices in 38 Countries (PRICOV-19).

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a large and varying impact on primary care. This paper studies changes in the tasks of general practitioners (GPs) and associated staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from the PRICOV-19 study of 5093 GPs in 38 countries were used. We constructed a scale for task changes and performed multilevel analyses. The scale was reliable at both GP and country level. Clustering of task changes at country level was considerable (25%). During the pandemic, staff members were more involved in giving information and recommendations to patients contacting the practice by phone, and they were more involved in triage. GPs took on additional responsibilities and were more involved in reaching out to patients. Problems due to staff absence, when dealt with internally, were related to more task changes. Task changes were larger in practices employing a wider range of professional groups. Whilst GPs were happy with the task changes in practices with more changes, they also felt the need for further training. A higher-than-average proportion of elderly people and people with a chronic condition in the practice were related to task changes. The number of infections in a country during the first wave of the pandemic was related to task changes. Other characteristics at country level were not associated with task changes. Future research on the sustainability of task changes after the pandemic is needed.