Patients' and professionals' experiences with remote care during COVID-19: a qualitative study in general practices in low-income neighborhoods.

AIM: To explore how patients and general practice professionals in low-income neighborhoods experienced the increase of remote care during COVID-19. BACKGROUND: As the GP (general practitioner) is the first point of contact in Dutch health care, there are concerns about access to remote care for patients from low-income neighborhoods. Now that general practice professionals have returned to the pre-pandemic ways of healthcare delivery, this paper looks back at experiences with remote care during COVID-19. It investigates experiences of both patients and general practice professionals with the approachability and appropriateness of remote care and their satisfaction. METHODS: In this qualitative study, 78 patients and 18 GPs, 7 nurse practitioners and 6 mental health professionals were interviewed. Interviews were held on the phone and face-to-face in the native language of the participants. FINDINGS: Remote care, especially telephone consultation, was generally well-approachable for patients from low-income neighborhoods. Contrarily, video calling was rarely used. This was partly because patients did not know how to use it. The majority of patients thought remote care was possible for minor ailments but would also still like to see the doctor face-to-face regularly. Patients were generally satisfied with remote care at the time, but this did not necessarily reflect their willingness to continue using it in the future. Moreover, there was lack in consensus among general practice professionals on the appropriateness of remote care for certain physical and mental complaints. Nurse practitioners and mental health professionals had a negative attitude toward remote care. In conclusion, it is important to take the opinions and barriers of patients and care providers into account and to increase patient-centered care elements and care provider satisfaction in remote care. Integrating remote care is not only important in times of crisis but also for future care that is becoming increasingly digitalized.

Using the health belief model to explain COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in Dutch urban citizens under thirty.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in drastic behavioral measures and lockdowns. Vaccination is widely regarded as the true and only global exit strategy; however, a high vaccination coverage is needed to contain the spread of the virus. Vaccination rates among young people are currently lacking. We therefore studied the experienced motivations and barriers regarding vaccination in young people with the use of the health belief model. METHODS: We conducted a correlational study, based on a convenience sample. At the vaccination location, directly after vaccination, 194participants(16-30 years) who decided to get vaccinated at a pop-up location several weeks after receiving a formal invitation, filled out a questionnaire regarding their attitudes towards vaccination based on concepts defined in the health belief model. We used these concepts to predict vaccination hesitancy. RESULTS: Younger participants and participants with lower educational levels report higher levels of hesitancy regarding vaccination (low education level = 38.9%, high education level = 25.4%). Perceived severity (Mhesitancy = .23, Mno hesitancy = .37) and susceptibility (Mhesitancy = .38, Mno hesitancy = .69) were not associated with hesitancy. Health related and idealistic benefits of vaccination were negatively associated with experienced hesitancy (Mhesitancy = .68, Mno hesitancy = -.37), while individualistic and practical benefits were not associated with hesitancy (Mhesitancy = -.09, Mno hesitancy = .05). Practical barriers were not associated with hesitancy (Mhesitancy = .05, Mno hesitancy = -.01), while fear related barriers were strongly associated with hesitancy (Mhesitancy = -.60, Mno hesitancy = .29). CONCLUSIONS: Health related, and idealistic beliefs are negatively associated with experienced hesitancy about vaccination, while fear related barriers is positively associated with experienced hesitancy. Future interventions should focus on these considerations, since they can facilitate or stand in the way of vaccination in young people who are doubting vaccination, while not principally opposed to it.

[Market vaccinations in Rotterdam]. / Marktvaccinaties in Rotterdam: Een voorbeeld van een campagne gestoeld op het equity-principe.

The COVID-19 vaccination rate is not evenly distributed across the Netherlands. In some neighborhoods, the vaccination rate is relatively low, causing individual health risks and a burden to the health care system. An explanation is the use of a national, general information campaign, while using a similar approach (equality approach) does not always lead to similar results. Therefore, we advocate the use of an equity approach instead, as defined by the WHO, which aims at achieving equal results by taking the specific needs of certain vulnerable groups into account. As an example, we describe an intervention that took place in Rotterdam, in which medical doctors, among which GPs, took the initiative to offer information about vaccinations and vaccination on the popular weekly markets of Rotterdam. Using interviews with medical volunteers who contributed to these market vaccinations, we outline the preconditions for successfully implementing such an outreach-based approach, and we make a number of practical recommendations.

[Close the health information gap: physicians should use the media to inform the public]. / Verklein de kloof in gezondheidsinformatie.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the impact of health care disparities to the general public. In addition, due to the societal impact of COVID-19, public discussions in the media entered the doctor's office. This led to a completely new interaction between doctors and the media. Our acquaintance during a television talk show emphasized the importance of collaboration for both of us. It made us realize that we, as a general practitioner and as a medical specialist, can have an important contribution to the social domain by addressing issues and providing information to the general public. It became increasingly clear that the media can be an important tool for doctors in this respect. By using (social) media we can reach a larger part of the general public with reliable medical information. At the same time, we can use this to reach policy makers and politicians to ultimately incorporate solutions into policy.