Changes in primary care visits for respiratory illness during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multinational study by the International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID).

Objectives: The majority of patients with respiratory illness are seen in primary care settings. Given COVID-19 is predominantly a respiratory illness, the INTernational ConsoRtium of Primary Care BIg Data Researchers (INTRePID), assessed the pandemic impact on primary care visits for respiratory illnesses. Design: Definitions for respiratory illness types were agreed on collectively. Monthly visit counts with diagnosis were shared centrally for analysis. Setting: Primary care settings in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Norway, Peru, Singapore, Sweden and the United States. Participants: Over 38 million patients seen in primary care settings in INTRePID countries before and during the pandemic, from January 1st, 2018, to December 31st, 2021. Main outcome measures: Relative change in the monthly mean number of visits before and after the onset of the pandemic for acute infectious respiratory disease visits including influenza, upper and lower respiratory tract infections and chronic respiratory disease visits including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory allergies, and other respiratory diseases. Results: INTRePID countries reported a marked decrease in the average monthly visits for respiratory illness. Changes in visits varied from -10.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): -33.1 to +11.3%] in Norway to -79.9% (95% CI: -86.4% to -73.4%) in China for acute infectious respiratory disease visits and - 2.1% (95% CI: -12.1 to +7.8%) in Peru to -59.9% (95% CI: -68.6% to -51.3%) in China for chronic respiratory illness visits. While seasonal variation in allergic respiratory illness continued during the pandemic, there was essentially no spike in influenza illness during the first 2 years of the pandemic. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on primary care visits for respiratory presentations. Primary care continued to provide services for respiratory illness, although there was a decrease in infectious illness during the COVID pandemic. Understanding the role of primary care may provide valuable information for COVID-19 recovery efforts and planning for future global emergencies.

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health visits in primary care: an interrupted time series analysis from nine INTRePID countries.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted mental health disorders, affecting both individuals with pre-existing conditions and those with no prior history. However, there is limited evidence regarding the pandemic's impact on mental health visits to primary care physicians. The International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID) explored primary care visit trends related to mental health conditions in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Norway, Peru, Singapore, Sweden, and the USA. Methods: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis in nine countries to examine changes in rates of monthly mental health visits to primary care settings from January 1st, 2018, to December 31st, 2021. Sub-group analysis considered service type (in-person/virtual) and six categories of mental health conditions (anxiety/depression, bipolar/schizophrenia/other psychotic disorders, sleep disorders, dementia, ADHD/eating disorders, and substance use disorder). Findings: Mental health visit rates increased after the onset of the pandemic in most countries. In Argentina, Canada, China, Norway, Peru, and Singapore, this increase was immediate ranged from an incidence rate ratio of 1·118 [95% CI 1.053-1.187] to 2.240 [95% CI 2.057-2.439] when comparing the first month of pandemic with the pre-pandemic trend. Increases in the following months varied across countries. Anxiety/depression was the leading reason for mental health visits in most countries. Virtual visits were reported in Australia, Canada, Norway, Peru, Sweden, and the USA, accounting for up to 40% of the total mental health visits. Interpretation: Findings suggest an overall increase in mental health visits, driven largely by anxiety/depression. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the studied countries adopted virtual care in particular for mental health visits. Primary care plays a crucial role in addressing mental ill-health in times of crisis. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant #173094 and the Rathlyn Foundation Primary Care EMR Research and Discovery Fund.

Tailored implementation of national recommendations on fall prevention among older adults in municipalities in Norway (FALLPREVENT trial): a study protocol for a cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial research evidence indicating the effectiveness of a range of interventions to prevent falls, uptake into routine clinical practice has been limited by several implementation challenges. The complexity of fall prevention in municipality health care underlines the importance of flexible implementation strategies tailored both to general determinants of fall prevention and to local contexts. This cluster-randomised trial (RCT) investigates the effectiveness of a tailored intervention to implement national recommendations on fall prevention among older home-dwelling adults compared to usual practice on adherence to the recommendations in health professionals. METHODS: Twenty-five municipalities from four regions in Norway will be randomised to intervention or control arms. Each municipality cluster will recruit up to 30 health professionals to participate in the study as responders. The tailored implementation intervention comprises four components: (1) identifying local structures for implementation, (2) establishing a resource team from different professions and levels, (3) promoting knowledge on implementation and fall prevention and (4) supporting the implementation process. Each of these components includes several implementation activities. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to categorise determinants of the implementation process and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) will guide the matching of barriers to implementation strategies. The primary outcome measure for the study will be health professionals' adherence to the national recommendations on fall prevention measured by a questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include injurious falls, the feasibility of the intervention, the experiences of the implementation process and intervention costs. Measurements will be carried out at baseline in August 2023, post-intervention in May 2024 and at a follow-up in November 2024. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence on the effectiveness, intervention costs and underlying processes of change of tailored implementation of evidence-based fall prevention recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered in the Open Science Registry: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JQ9T5 . Registered: March 03, 2023.

Global impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on sexual and reproductive health services: An international comparative study on primary care from the INTRePID Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted sexual and reproductive health (SRH) visits. DESIGN: An ecological study comparing SRH services volume in different countries before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING: Seven countries from the INTernational ConsoRtium of Primary Care BIg Data Researchers (INTRePID) across four continents. POPULATION: Over 3.8 million SRH visits to primary care physicians in Australia, China, Canada, Norway, Singapore, Sweden and the USA. METHODS: Difference in average SRH monthly visits before and during the pandemic, with negative binomial regression modelling to compare predicted and observed number of visits during the pandemic for SRH visits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monthly number of visits to primary care physicians from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: During the pandemic, the average volume of monthly SRH visits increased in Canada (15.6%, 99% CI 8.1-23.0%) where virtual care was pronounced. China, Singapore, Sweden and the USA experienced a decline (-56.5%, 99% CI -74.5 to -38.5%; -22.7%, 99% CI -38.8 to -6.5%; -19.4%, 99% CI -28.3 to -10.6%; and -22.7%, 99% CI -38.8 to -6.5%, respectively); while Australia and Norway showed insignificant changes (6.5%, 99% CI -0.7 to -13.8% and 1.7%, 99% CI -6.4 to -9.8%). The countries that maintained (Australia, Norway) or surpassed (Canada) pre-pandemic visit rates had the greatest use of virtual care. CONCLUSIONS: In-person SRH visits to primary care decreased during the pandemic. Virtual care seemed to counterbalance that decline. Although cervical cancer screening appeared insensitive to virtual care, strategies such as incorporating self-collected samples for HPV testing may provide a solution in a future pandemic.

Chronic fatigue syndromes: real illnesses that people can recover from.

The 'Oslo Chronic Fatigue Consortium' consists of researchers and clinicians who question the current narrative that chronic fatigue syndromes, including post-covid conditions, are incurable diseases. Instead, we propose an alternative view, based on research, which offers more hope to patients. Whilst we regard the symptoms of these conditions as real, we propose that they are more likely to reflect the brain's response to a range of biological, psychological, and social factors, rather than a specific disease process. Possible causes include persistent activation of the neurobiological stress response, accompanied by associated changes in immunological, hormonal, cognitive and behavioural domains. We further propose that the symptoms are more likely to persist if they are perceived as threatening, and all activities that are perceived to worsen them are avoided. We also question the idea that the best way to cope with the illness is by prolonged rest, social isolation, and sensory deprivation.Instead, we propose that recovery is often possible if patients are helped to adopt a less threatening understanding of their symptoms and are supported in a gradual return to normal activities. Finally, we call for a much more open and constructive dialogue about these conditions. This dialogue should include a wider range of views, including those of patients who have recovered from them.

Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis.

Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a disabling long-term condition of unknown cause. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a guideline in 2021 that highlighted the seriousness of the condition, but also recommended that graded exercise therapy (GET) should not be used and cognitive-behavioural therapy should only be used to manage symptoms and reduce distress, not to aid recovery. This U-turn in recommendations from the previous 2007 guideline is controversial.We suggest that the controversy stems from anomalies in both processing and interpretation of the evidence by the NICE committee. The committee: (1) created a new definition of CFS/ME, which 'downgraded' the certainty of trial evidence; (2) omitted data from standard trial end points used to assess efficacy; (3) discounted trial data when assessing treatment harm in favour of lower quality surveys and qualitative studies; (4) minimised the importance of fatigue as an outcome; (5) did not use accepted practices to synthesise trial evidence adequately using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations trial evidence); (6) interpreted GET as mandating fixed increments of change when trials defined it as collaborative, negotiated and symptom dependent; (7) deviated from NICE recommendations of rehabilitation for related conditions, such as chronic primary pain and (8) recommended an energy management approach in the absence of supportive research evidence.We conclude that the dissonance between this and the previous guideline was the result of deviating from usual scientific standards of the NICE process. The consequences of this are that patients may be denied helpful treatments and therefore risk persistent ill health and disability.

Using evidence to decision frameworks led to guidelines of better quality and more credible and transparent recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the use of Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks is associated to higher quality of both guidelines and individual recommendations. METHODS: We identified guidelines recently published by international organizations that have methodological guidance documents for their development. Pairs of researchers independently extracted information on the use of these frameworks, appraised the quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II Instrument (AGREE-II), and assessed the clinical credibility and implementability of the recommendations with the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX) tool. We conducted both descriptive and inferential analyses. RESULTS: We included 66 guidelines from 17 different countries, published in the last 5 years. Thirty guidelines (45%) used an EtD framework to formulate their recommendations. Compared to those that did not use a framework, those using an EtD framework scored higher in all domains of both AGREE-II and AGREE-REX (P < 0.05). Quality scores did not differ between the use of the The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-EtD framework (17 guidelines) or another EtD framework (13 guidelines) (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of EtD frameworks is associated with guidelines of better quality, and more credible and transparent recommendations. Endorsement of EtD frameworks by guideline developing organizations will likely increase the quality of their guidelines.

Prevalence of long COVID complaints in persons with and without COVID-19.

We studied the prevalence and patterns of typical long COVID complaints in ~ 2.3 million individuals aged 18-70 years with and without confirmed COVID-19 in a Nation-wide population-based prospective cohort study in Norway. Our main outcome measures were the period prevalence of single-occurring or different combinations of complaints based on medical records: (1) Pulmonary (dyspnea and/or cough), (2) Neurological (concentration problems, memory loss), and/or (3) General complaints (fatigue). In persons testing positive (n = 75 979), 64 (95% confidence interval: 54 to 73) and 122 (111 to 113) more persons per 10 000 persons had pulmonary complaints 5-6 months after the test compared to 10 000 persons testing negative (n = 1 167 582) or untested (n = 1 084 578), respectively. The corresponding difference in prevalence of general complaints (fatigue) was 181 (168 to 195) and 224 (211 to 238) per 10 000, and of neurological complaints 5 (2 to 8) and 9 (6-13) per 10 000. Overlap between complaints was rare. Long COVID complaints were only slightly more prevalent in persons with than without confirmed COVID-19. Still, long COVID may pose a substantial burden to healthcare systems in the future given the lasting high incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

Evidence to decision frameworks enabled structured and explicit development of healthcare recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify and describe the processes suggested for the formulation of healthcare recommendations in healthcare guidelines available in guidance documents. METHODS: We searched international databases in May 2020 to retrieve guidance documents published by organizations dedicated to guideline development. Pairs of researchers independently selected and extracted data about the characteristics of the guidance document, including explicit or implicit recommendation-related criteria and processes considered, as well as the use of evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks. RESULTS: We included 68 guidance documents. Most organizations reported a system for grading the strength of recommendations (88%), half of them being the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Two out of three guidance documents (66%) proposed the use of a framework to guide the EtD process. The GRADE-EtD framework was the most often reported framework (19 organizations, 42%), whereas 20 organizations (44%) proposed their own multicriteria frameworks. Using any EtD framework was related with a more comprehensive set of recommendation-related criteria compared to no framework, especially for criteria like values, equity, and acceptability. CONCLUSION: Although limited, the use of EtD frameworks was associated with the inclusion of relevant recommendation criteria. Among the EtD structured frameworks, the GRADE-EtD framework offers the most comprehensive perspective for evidence-informed decision-making processes.

Changes in primary care visits arising from the COVID-19 pandemic: an international comparative study by the International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID).

INTRODUCTION: Through the INTernational ConsoRtium of Primary Care BIg Data Researchers (INTRePID), we compared the pandemic impact on the volume of primary care visits and uptake of virtual care in Australia, Canada, China, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, the UK and the USA. METHODS: Visit definitions were agreed on centrally, implemented locally across the various settings in INTRePID countries, and weekly visit counts were shared centrally for analysis. We evaluated the weekly rate of primary care physician visits during 2019 and 2020. Rate ratios (RRs) of total weekly visit volume and the proportion of weekly visits that were virtual in the pandemic period in 2020 compared with the same prepandemic period in 2019 were calculated. RESULTS: In 2019 and 2020, there were 80 889 386 primary care physician visits across INTRePID. During the pandemic, average weekly visit volume dropped in China, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA but was stable overall in Australia (RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.05, p=0.59)), Canada (RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.03, p=0.24)), Norway (RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.17, p=0.85)), Sweden (RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.06, p=0.22)) and the UK (RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.03, p=0.11)). In countries that had negligible virtual care prepandemic, the proportion of visits that were virtual were highest in Canada (77.0%) and Australia (41.8%). In Norway (RR 8.23 (95% CI 5.30 to 12.78, p<0.001), the UK (RR 2.36 (95% CI 2.24 to 2.50, p<0.001)) and Sweden (RR 1.33 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.50, p<0.001)) where virtual visits existed prepandemic, it increased significantly during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The drop in primary care in-person visits during the pandemic was a global phenomenon across INTRePID countries. In several countries, primary care shifted to virtual visits mitigating the drop in in-person visits.

Health communication in and out of public health emergencies: to persuade or to inform?

Much health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic has been designed to persuade people more than to inform them. For example, messages like "masks save lives" are intended to compel people to wear face masks, not to enable them to make an informed decision about whether to wear a face mask or to understand the justification for a mask mandate. Both persuading people and informing them are reasonable goals for health communication. However, those goals can sometimes be in conflict. In this article, we discuss potential conflicts between seeking to persuade or to inform people, the use of spin to persuade people, the ethics of persuasion, and implications for health communication in the context of the pandemic and generally. Decisions to persuade people rather than enable them to make an informed choice may be justified, but the basis for those decisions should be transparent and the evidence should not be distorted. We suggest nine principles to guide decisions by health authorities about whether to try to persuade people.

An evaluation of the COVID-19 recommendation map identified diverging clinical and public health guidance.

OBJECTIVES: To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) guideline developers cataloged on the "COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization" platform. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgments of strength, direction, or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied a content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence. RESULTS: Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in an explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements. Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. The date of publication, used evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence. CONCLUSION: More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps in understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence.

A taxonomy and framework for identifying and developing actionable statements in guidelines suggests avoiding informal recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To propose a taxonomy and framework that identifies and presents actionable statements in guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We took an iterative approach reviewing case studies of guidelines produced by the World Health Organization and the American Society of Hematology to develop an initial conceptual framework. We then tested it using randomly selected recommendations from published guidelines addressing COVID-19 from different organizations, evaluated its results, and refined it before retesting. The urgency and availability of evidence for development of these recommendations varied. We consulted with experts in research methodology and guideline developers to improve the final framework. RESULTS: The resulting taxonomy and framework distinguishes five types of actional statements: formal recommendations; research recommendations; good practice statements; implementation considerations, tools and tips; and informal recommendations. These statements should respond to a priori established criteria and require a clear structure and recognizable presentation in a guideline. Most importantly, this framework identifies informal recommendations that differ from formal recommendations by how they consider evidence and in their development process. CONCLUSION: The identification, standardization and explicit labelling of actionable statements according to the framework may support guideline developers to create actionable statements with clear intent, avoid informal recommendations and improve their understanding and implementation by users.

Laboratory Methods for Detection of Infectious Agents and Serological Response in Humans With Tick-Borne Infections: A Systematic Review of Evaluations Based on Clinical Patient Samples.

Background: For the most important and well-known infections spread by Ixodes ticks, Lyme borreliosis (LB) and tick-borne encephalitis (TBE), there are recommendations for diagnosis and management available from several health authorities and professional medical networks. However, other tick-borne microorganisms with potential to cause human disease are less known and clear recommendations on diagnosis and management are scarce. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of published studies and reviews focusing on evaluation of laboratory methods for clinical diagnosis of human tick-borne diseases (TBDs), other than acute LB and TBE. The specific aim was to evaluate the scientific support for laboratory diagnosis of human granulocytic anaplasmosis, rickettsiosis, neoehrlichiosis, babesiosis, hard tick relapsing fever, tularemia and bartonellosis, as well as tick-borne co-infections and persistent LB in spite of recommended standard antibiotic treatment. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in 11 databases for research published from 2007 through 2017, and categorized potentially relevant references according to the predefined infections and study design. An expert group assessed the relevance and eligibility and reviewed the articles according to the QUADAS (diagnostic studies) or AMSTAR (systematic reviews) protocols, respectively. Clinical evaluations of one or several diagnostic tests and systematic reviews were included. Case reports, non-human studies and articles published in other languages than English were excluded. Results: A total of 48 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for evaluation. The majority of these studies were based on small sample sizes. There were no eligible studies for evaluation of tick-borne co-infections or for persistent LB after antibiotic treatment. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need for larger evaluations of laboratory tests using clinical samples from well-defined cases taken at different time-points during the course of the diseases. Since the diseases occur at a relatively low frequency, single-center cross-sectional studies are practically not feasible, but multi-center case control studies could be a way forward.