The experiences of patients ill with COVID-19-like symptoms and the role of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in supporting them: A qualitative study in eight European countries during the first wave of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Access to testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was limited, impacting patients with COVID-19-like symptoms. Current qualitative studies have been limited to one country or were conducted outside Europe. OBJECTIVES: To explore - in eight European countries - the experiences of patients consulting in primary care with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Sixty-six semi-structured interviews, informed by a topic guide, were conducted by telephone or in person between April and July 2020. Patients with COVID-19-like symptoms were purposively recruited in primary care sites in eight countries and sampled based on age, gender, and symptom presentation. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis techniques were used to develop a framework representing data across settings. Data adequacy was attained by collecting rich data. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified, which described the experiences of patients consulting. Two themes are reported in this manuscript describing the role of COVID-19 testing in this experience. Patients described significant distress due to their symptoms, especially those at higher risk of complications from COVID-19, and those with severe symptoms. Patients wanted access to testing to identify the cause of their illness and minimise the burden of managing uncertainty. Some patients testing positive for COVID-19 assumed they would be immune from future infection. CONCLUSION: Patients experiencing novel and severe symptoms, particularly those with comorbidities, experienced a significant emotional and psychological burden due to concerns about COVID-19. Testing provided reassurance over health status and helped patients identify which guidance to follow. Testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 led to some patients thinking they were immune from future infection, thus influencing subsequent behaviour.

Initial symptoms and three months follow-up after acute COVID-19 in outpatients: An international prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on long-term follow-up of patients with COVID-19 focused on hospitalised patients. No prospective study with structured follow-up has been performed in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess long-COVID and post-COVID (WHO definition: symptomatic at least 12 weeks), describe lingering symptoms, their impact on daily activities, and general practice visits and explore risk factors for symptom duration in outpatients. METHODS: A prospective study of adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptoms consistent with COVID-19 in 11 European countries, recruited during 2020 and 2021 from primary care and the community. Structured follow-up by phone interviews (symptom rating, symptom impact on daily activities and general practice visits) was performed at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12 by study personnel. Data was analysed descriptively by using correlation matrixes and Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 270 enrolled patients, 52% developed long-COVID and 32% post-COVID-syndrome. When only considering the presence of moderate or (very) severe symptoms at weeks 8 and 12, these percentages were 28% and 18%, respectively. Fatigue was the most often reported symptom during follow-up. The impact of lingering symptoms was most evident in sports and household activities. About half (53%) had at least one general practice contact during follow-up. Obese patients took twice as long to return to usual health (HR: 0.5, 95%CI: 0.3-0.8); no other risk profile could predict lingering symptoms. CONCLUSION: Long-COVID and post-COVID are also common in outpatients. In 32%, it takes more than 12 weeks to return to usual health.

Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the primary care consultations for acute respiratory infections during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: an eight-country qualitative study in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients' and clinicians' perceptions of healthcare-seeking behaviour and delivery of care is unclear. The pandemic accelerated the use of remote care, and understanding its benefits and drawbacks may inform its implementation during current and future healthcare emergencies. AIM: To explore patients' and primary care professionals' (PCPs) experiences of primary care delivery in the first wave of the pandemic. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in primary care in eight European countries (England, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Poland, Sweden, and Germany). METHOD: A total of 146 interviews were conducted with 80 PCPs and 66 patients consulting for respiratory tract infection (RTI) symptoms, in eight European countries. Data were collected between April and July 2020, and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: It was found that patients accepted telemedicine when PCPs spent time to understand and address their concerns, but a minority preferred in-person consultations. PCPs felt that remote consultations created emotional distance between themselves and patients, and they reported having to manage diverse COVID-19-related medical and social concerns. CONCLUSION: Remote consultations for RTI symptoms may be acceptable long term if both groups are happy to use this format, but it is important that PCPs take time to address patients' concerns and provide safety-netting advice.

Public Health Interventions to Improve Antimicrobial Resistance Awareness and Behavioural Change Associated with Antimicrobial Use: A Systematic Review Exploring the Use of Social Media

Introduction: Over the years there have been several interventions targeted at the public to increase their knowledge and awareness about Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). In this work, we updated a previously published review by Price et al. (2018), on effectiveness of interventions to improve the public’s antimicrobial resistance awareness and behaviours associated with prudent use of antimicrobials to identify which interventions work best in influencing public behaviour. Methods: Five databases—Medline (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL-OVID)—were searched for AMR interventions between 2017 and 2021 targeting the public. All studies which had a before and after assessment of the intervention were considered for inclusion. Results: In total, 17 studies were found to be eligible for inclusion in the review. Since there was a variety in the study interventions and in particular outcomes, a narrative synthesis approach was adopted for analysis. Whereas each study showed some impact on awareness and knowledge, none measured long-term impact on behaviours towards antibiotic use, awareness, or knowledge. Engagement was higher in interventions which included interactive elements such as games or videos. Social media was not used for recruitment of participants or as a mode of communication in any AMR interventions included in this review.

Primary care for patients with respiratory tract infection before and early on in the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study in 16 European countries

ObjectiveTo describe primary health care (consultation characteristics and management) for patients contacting their general practitioner (GP) with a respiratory tract infection (RTI) early on in the COVID-19 pandemic in contrasting European countries, with comparison to prepandemic findings.SettingPrimary care in 16 countries (79 practices), when no routine SARS-CoV-2 testing was generally available.Design and participantsBefore (n=4376) and early in the pandemic (n=3301), patients with RTI symptoms were registered in this prospective audit study.Outcome measuresConsultation characteristics (type of contact and use of PPE) and management characteristics (clinical assessments, diagnostic testing, prescribing, advice and referral) were registered. Differences in these characteristics between countries and between pandemic and prepandemic care are described.ResultsCare for patients with RTIs rapidly switched to telephone/video consultations (10% in Armenia, 91% in Denmark), and when consultations were face-to-face, GPs used PPE during 97% (95% CI 96% to 98%) of contacts. Laboratory testing for SARS-CoV-2 in primary care patients with RTIs was rapidly implemented in Denmark (59%) and Germany (31%), while overall testing for C reactive protein decreased. The proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics varied considerably between countries (3% in Belgium, 48% in UK) and was lower during the pandemic compared with the months before, except for Greece, Poland and UK. GPs provided frequent and varied COVID-related advice and more frequently scheduled a follow-up contact (50%, 95% CI 48% to 52%). GPs reported a slightly higher degree of confidence in the likely effectiveness of their management in face-to-face (73% (very) confident, 95% CI 71% to 76%) than in virtual consultations (69%, 95% CI 67% to 71%).ConclusionsDespite between-country variation in consultation characteristics, access to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing and medication prescribing, GPs reported a high degree of confidence in managing their patients with RTIs in the emerging pandemic. Insight in the highly variable pandemic responses, as measured in this multicountry audit, can aid in fine-tuning national action and in coordinating a pan-European response during future pandemic threats.

Supporting Primary Care Professionals to Stay in Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Views on Personal Risk and Access to Testing During the First Wave of Pandemic in Europe.

Background: Minimising primary care professionals' (PCPs) risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial to ensure their safety as well as functioning health care system. PCPs' perspectives on the support they needed in the early stages of a public health crisis can inform future preparedness. Aim: To understand PCPs' experiences of providing care during the COVID-19 pandemic, with focus on personal risk from COVID-19 and testing. Design and Setting: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with PCPs in England, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Greece and Sweden, between April and July 2020. Method: Interviews were analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques. Results: Eighty interviews were conducted, showing that PCPs tried to make sense of their risk of both contracting and severity of COVID-19 by assessing individual risk factors and perceived effectiveness of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). They had limited access to PPE yet continued providing care as their "duty." Some PCPs felt that they were put in high-risk situations when patients or colleagues were not flagging symptoms of COVID-19. Not having access to testing in the initial stages of the pandemic was somewhat accepted but when available, was valued. Conclusion: Access to adequate PPE and testing, as well as training for staff and education for patients about the importance of ensuring staff safety is crucial. Given PCPs' varied response in how they appraised personal risk and their tolerance for working, PCPs may benefit from the autonomy in deciding how they want to work during health emergencies.

Transformation of primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences of healthcare professionals in eight European countries.

BACKGROUND: Primary care has a crucial role in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic as the first point of patient care and gatekeeper to secondary care. Qualitative studies exploring the experiences of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly focused on secondary care. AIM: To gain an understanding of the experiences of European primary care professionals (PCPs) working during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: An exploratory qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews in primary care in England, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Greece, and Sweden, between April and July 2020. METHOD: Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques. RESULTS: Eighty interviews were conducted with PCPs. PCPs had to make their own decisions on how to rapidly transform services in relation to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 care. Despite being overwhelmed with guidance, they often lacked access to practical training. Consequently, PCPs turned to their colleagues for moral support and information to try to quickly adjust to new ways of working, including remote care, and to deal with uncertainty. CONCLUSION: PCPs rapidly transformed primary care delivery despite a number of challenges. Representation of primary care at policy level and engagement with local primary care champions are needed to facilitate easy and coordinated access to practical information on how to adapt services, ongoing training, and access to appropriate mental health support services for PCPs. Preservation of autonomy and responsiveness of primary care are critical to preserve the ability for rapid transformation in any future crisis of care delivery.

Corona citizens' science project-repeated surveys of the Irish response to COVID-19 and subsequent lockdown and restrictive measures.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, many people have been affected by COVID-19, a novel respiratory illness, caused by a new type of coronavirus SARS-CoV2. The COVID-19 outbreak is considered a pandemic and has created a number of challenges for the general population, patients, and healthcare professionals. Lockdowns have been implemented to slow down the spread of the virus with the expectation that these restrictions will limit the number of cases, and hence the number of hospitalizations and ICU admissions. However, these restrictions, and in particular lockdowns, impact on the life of everyone living in Ireland. AIM: To record how the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent restrictive measures impacted on people's activities, work, schooling, and childcare. METHODS: The Corona Citizens' Science Project was set up as a population-wide survey. A questionnaire was designed, and the survey was first launched on the 8th of April 2020. An overview of results was released in the press days later. Data was collected in four waves: April 8, April 22, May 6, and June 17, 2020. Each wave had core questions allowing to compare each wave, and wave-specific questions, to understand current impact of changing measures. RESULTS: Over four waves, 152,259 responses were collected. The mean age of respondents was 47 with about 10% over the age of 65. Around 75% were female and 85% had a higher degree. Nearly 70% of the respondents were in employment, and around 13% were retired. Up to 20% of the respondents were essential workers, and 10% of respondents indicated they were in receipt of the COVID-19 pandemic unemployment payment. Around 10% of the people who responded were living alone. The number of people talked to the previous day was on average 2.3 in the first survey; during the lockdown, this went up over time, and in the last survey, the mean was 3.9. The percentage of respondents who did not talk to anyone the previous day decreased from 40 to 22% over the waves. In the first wave, about 6% of respondents reported having had flu-like symptoms in the last 14 days, which declined to 3.3%, 2.5%, and 2.0% in waves 2, 3, and 4 respectively. Similarly, over the four waves, the respondents who indicated that someone they lived with had flu-like symptoms declined from 17 to 12%, 9%, and 11%. Throughout the four waves, nearly one third of people reported one or more underlying conditions. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of restrictive measures, in particular lockdown, were implemented in Ireland to protect populations and healthcare systems. To record some of the major impacts on society, we launched a Corona Citizens Science Project, with the aim to support decision-making. This report provides detail of its findings.