Association between patient-related factors and avoided consultations due to fear of COVID-19 during the first lockdown in northern Germany: Results of a cross-sectional observational study.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people were anxious about a coronavirus infection due to the high infection rate and the mortality risk associated with the disease. Fear of COVID-19 might have influenced patients' utilisation of medical services, even if it meant that a postponed therapy had severe consequences. Our aims were to analyse (a) to what extent fear of COVID-19 contributes to forgone consultations, (b) if patient characteristics, health literacy and social support influence the effect of fear of COVID-19 on the utilisation behaviour and (c) whether interactions between these possible predictor variables are responsible for a higher extent of avoided consultations due to fear of COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional observational study in an emergency department. The study was based on personal standardized interviews of patients. The interviews took place between July 15 and August 5, 2020. Patients over the age of 18 were included if there was no urgent need for treatment on the day of the interview, no severe functional limitations, sufficient knowledge of German, ability to consent and health problems requiring treatment between March 13 and June 13, 2020. Differences between patient subgroups were described and analysed using the t-test and chi2 test. Data were analysed by logistic regression including socio-demographic data, health literacy and social support assessed by standardised instruments. Additionally, we assessed interactions between possible predictor variables by a descriptive tree analysis. RESULTS: 103 patients participated in personal standardized interviews. 46 patients (44.6%) reported that at least one necessary consultation did not take place in the observation period. Among those, 29 patients (63.0%) avoided consultations due to fear of COVID-19. Women had 3.36 times higher odds (95% confidence interval: 1.25 to 9.04, p = 0.017) for avoiding a consultation due to fear of COVID-19. There were no other statistically significant predictors in our analysis. DISCUSSION: Almost half of the required consultations did not take place. Avoidance of consultations needs to be closely monitored during the pandemic. Policy makers as well as health care providers should give consideration to the collateral effects of COVID-19 and COVID-19-related reactions of patients, especially women. CONCLUSION: In the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians should ensure that their patients take advantage of necessary consultations in order to avoid negative effects of a delayed examination or treatment. Particular attention should be paid to anxious female patients. Studies are needed to analyse the association between health literacy, social support and avoidance of consultations triggered by fear of COVID-19.

Expectations and Prior Experiences Associated With Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination.

Importance: Uptake of vaccination against COVID-19 is strongly affected by concerns about adverse effects. Research on nocebo effects suggests that these concerns can amplify symptom burden. Objective: To investigate whether positive and negative expectations prior to COVID-19 vaccination are associated with systemic adverse effects. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study analyzed the association of expected benefits and risks of vaccination, adverse effects at first vaccination, and observed adverse effects in close contacts with severity of systemic adverse effects among adults receiving a second dose of messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccines between August 16 and 28, 2021. A total of 7771 individuals receiving the second dose at a state vaccination center in Hamburg, Germany, were invited to participate; of these, 5370 did not respond, 535 provided incomplete information, and 188 were excluded retrospectively. The mobile application m-Path was used for data collection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was a composite severity index of systemic adverse effects in 12 symptom areas measured once daily with an electronic symptom diary over 7 consecutive days. Data were analyzed by mixed-effects multivariable ordered logistic regression adjusted for prevaccine symptom levels and observation times. Results: A total of 10 447 observations from 1678 individuals receiving vaccinations (BNT162b2 [Pfizer BioNTech] in 1297 [77.3%] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna] in 381 [22.7%]) were collected. The participants' median age was 34 (IQR, 27-44) years, and 862 (51.4%) were women. The risk for more severe adverse effects was higher for persons expecting a lower benefit of vaccination (odds ratio [OR] for higher expectations, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.63-0.83]; P < .001), expecting higher adverse effects of vaccination (OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.23-1.58]; P < .001), having experienced higher symptom burden at the first vaccination (OR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.42-1.82]; P < .001), scoring higher on the Somatosensory Amplification Scale (OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.06-1.38]; P = .004), and if the vaccine mRNA-1273 was given rather than BNT162b2 (OR, 2.45 [95% CI, 2.01-2.99]; P < .001). No associations were seen for observed experiences. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, several nocebo effects occurred in the first week after COVID-19 vaccination. The severity of systemic adverse effects was associated not only with vaccine-specific reactogenicity but also more negative prior experiences with adverse effects from the first COVID-19 vaccination, more negative expectations regarding vaccination, and tendency to catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations. Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines.

Public perceptions of urgency of severe cases of COVID-19 and inflammatory gastrointestinal disease.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that perceived urgency of medical complaints is associated with emergency care utilization. Patients' perception of urgency can differ from physicians' assessment. This study explored public perceptions of urgency of severe cases of COVID-19 and inflammatory gastrointestinal disease and analyzed variations in perceptions of urgency by characteristics of the afflicted person in the vignettes and sociodemographic characteristics of respondents. METHODS: Vignettes with severe symptoms of either inflammatory gastrointestinal disease or COVID-19 with comparable urgency of treatment were used in a telephone survey in Germany (N = 1,207). Besides disease, the vignettes varied in terms of sex, age (child, middle-aged person, old person) and daytime (Tuesday morning, Tuesday evening). Respondents were asked to rate the urgency of the reported symptoms with four items. A sum scale was computed. Variations in perceptions of urgency according to vignette characteristics and sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents (sex, age, educational level, migration background, children (yes/no) and personal affliction) were analyzed using a linear regression model. RESULTS: In terms of vignette characteristics, multivariate analysis showed a lower estimated urgency for males, as well as for the middle-aged and aged persons, compared to the child vignettes, and for COVID-19, compared to inflammatory gastrointestinal disease. Regarding the characteristics of the respondents, estimated urgency increased with age and was lower among respondents, who were previously affected by the symptoms themselves. CONCLUSION: Although urgency in the vignettes was comparable, variations in estimated urgency by age and sex of the afflicted person and the described disease as well as age and personal affliction of the respondents were identified. This could result in an inadequate health care service utilization. Therefore, variations in public perceptions of urgency should be considered in the planning of public campaigns on adequate health care services utilization.

Intended healthcare utilisation in cases of severe COVID-19 and inflammatory gastrointestinal disease: results of a population survey with vignettes.

OBJECTIVES: To examine variations in intended healthcare utilisation in severe cases of COVID-19 and inflammatory gastrointestinal disease (IGD). DESIGN: Representative cross-sectional telephone survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 1207 randomly drawn adults of the city of Hamburg, Germany, between November 2020 and January 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Different vignettes with severe symptoms were presented varying in sex, age (child, middle-aged person, older person), daytime (Tuesday morning or Tuesday evening) and disease (COVID-19 or IGD), while the degree of urgency was equivalent for all cases. The respondents were asked for the intended healthcare utilisation resulting in three different alternatives: general practitioner (GP)/paediatrician, medical on-call service ('116117') and emergency care (accident and emergency department, emergency practice, rescue service). In multivariate analyses, associations of characteristics of the vignettes and participants (sex, age, education, migration background) with intended healthcare utilisation were tested. In a further step, analyses were conducted separately for IGD and COVID-19. RESULTS: Regarding the vignettes' characteristics, intended utilisation of GP/paediatrician is associated with female sex, higher age, daytime (morning) and COVID-19 symptoms, the medical on-call service with male sex, daytime (evening) and COVID-19 symptoms and the emergency medicine with younger age, daytime (evening) and IGD. Women chose more often the GP/paediatrician, men preferred emergency medicine. Only in case of IGD, higher educated persons more often chose the medical on-call service while people with a migration background decided less often for medical on-call service and emergency medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Despite comparable urgency, the findings suggest variations of intended healthcare utilisation depending on various characteristics of the vignettes and respondents. Depending on the type of disease inequalities vary. Overall, information about healthcare alternatives in severe cases has to be improved and clear pathways to facilitate healthcare utilisation has to be further developed.

The effect of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on consultation numbers, consultation reasons and performed services in primary care: results of a longitudinal observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of our study were to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on primary care in Germany regarding the number of consultations, the prevalence of specific reasons for consultation presented by the patients, and the frequency of specific services performed by the GP. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal observational study based on standardised GP interviews in a quota sampling design comparing the time before the COVID-19 pandemic (12 June 2015 to 27 April 2017) with the time during lockdown (21 April to 14 July 2020). The sample included GPs in urban and rural areas 120 km around Hamburg, Germany, and was stratified by region type and administrative districts. Differences in the consultation numbers were analysed by multivariate linear regressions in mixed models adjusted for random effects on the levels of the administrative districts and GP practices. RESULTS: One hundred ten GPs participated in the follow-up, corresponding to 52.1% of the baseline. Primary care practices in 32 of the 37 selected administrative districts (86.5%) could be represented in both assessments. At baseline, GPs reported 199.6 ± 96.9 consultations per week, which was significantly reduced during COVID-19 lockdown by 49.0% to 101.8 ± 67.6 consultations per week (p < 0.001). During lockdown, the frequency of five reasons for consultation (-43.0% to -31.5%) and eleven services (-56.6% to -33.5%) had significantly decreased. The multilevel, multivariable analyses showed an average reduction of 94.6 consultations per week (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a dramatic reduction of the number of consultations in primary care. This effect was independent of age, sex and specialty of the GP and independent of the practice location in urban or rural areas. Consultations for complaints like low back pain, gastrointestinal complaints, vertigo or fatigue and services like house calls/calls at nursing homes, wound treatments, pain therapy or screening examinations for the early detection of chronic diseases were particularly affected.