ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of our study is to analyse the trends in the diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an observational retrospective population-based study using data from primary care electronic health records spanning from January 2016 to December 2022 (involving 5.1 million people older than 14 years). We described the daily number of new STI diagnoses from 2016 to 2022; as well as the monthly accumulation of new STI diagnoses for each year. We compared the monthly averages of new diagnoses in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 using the T-test. Finally, we performed a segmented regression analysis of the daily number of STI diagnoses. RESULTS: We analysed 200,676 new STI diagnoses. The number of diagnoses abruptly decreased coinciding with the lockdown. Overall in 2020, we observed a reduction of 15%, with higher reductions for specific STIs such as gonorrhoea (-21%), chlamydia (-24%), and HIV (-31%) compared to 2019. Following this drastic drop, which was temporarily associated with the lockdown, we observed a rapid rebound. In 2021, the number of STI diagnoses was similar to that of 2019. Notably, we found a considerable increase in 2022, particularly for non-specific STI, which lack laboratory confirmation (67% increase). HIV was the only STI with a reduction of up to -38% in diagnoses at the end of 2022 compared to 2019. CONCLUSIONS: After a significant reduction in 2020, the number of STIs recorded in primary care rapidly rebounded, and the current trend is similar to that of 2019, except for HIV. These findings underscore the dynamic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on STI diagnoses and highlight the importance of ongoing monitoring and public health interventions in the post-pandemic period.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Electronic Health Records , Primary Health Care , Sexually Transmitted Diseases , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/epidemiology , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/diagnosis , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Spain/epidemiology , Female , Male , Adult , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Young AdultABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Family Practice/standards , Language , Terminology as Topic , Primary Health Care/methodsABSTRACT
OBJETIVO: En investigación es fundamental informar adecuadamente a los pacientes y respetar el principio de autonomía. El objetivo de este estudio fue explorar la percepción de médicos de familia, investigadores y pacientes sobre el proceso del consentimiento informado (CI) en los ensayos clínicos (EC), y el papel que desempeña el médico de familia. DISEÑO: Estudio transversal mediante 3 cuestionarios y revisión de CI, historias clínicas e informes de alta hospitalaria. Emplazamiento: Médicos de familia, investigadores y pacientes involucrados en EC. PARTICIPANTES: Quinientos cuatro médicos de familia, 108 investigadores y 71 pacientes. RESULTADOS: En el 50% de los CI se recomendaba consultar con el médico de familia. Constaba la participación en un EC en el 33% de las historias clínicas de atención primaria y en el 3% de informes de alta hospitalaria. Los médicos de familia suspendieron, con 3,54 puntos, la información recibida a través del investigador principal. La legibilidad del CI fue puntuada con 8,03 puntos por los investigadores y con 7,68 por los pacientes (rango: 1-10 puntos). La satisfacción de los pacientes se relacionó positivamente con el tiempo de reflexión concedido. CONCLUSIONES: Los médicos de familia mostraron insatisfacción con la información que reciben sobre la participación de los pacientes de su cupo en EC. Los investigadores son conscientes de la necesidad de mejorar la información que reciben los médicos de familia, aunque están satisfechos con la información ofrecida a los pacientes. Los pacientes se mostraron colaboradores y satisfechos con la investigación biomédica y minimizaron los inconvenientes relacionados con la participación
OBJECTIVE: Adequate information for patients and respect for their autonomy are mandatory in research. This article examined insights of researchers, patients and general practitioners (GPs) on the informed consent process in clinical trials, and the role of the GP. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study using three questionnaires, informed consent reviews, medical records, and hospital discharge reports. SETTING: GPs, researchers and patients involved in clinical trials. PARTICIPANTS: Included, 504 GPs, 108 researchers, and 71 patients. RESULTS: Consulting the GP was recommended in 50% of the informed consents. Participation in clinical trials was shown in 33% of the medical records and 3% of the hospital discharge reports. GPs scored 3.54 points (on a 1-10 scale) on the assessment of the information received by the principal investigator. The readability of the informed consent sheet was rated 8.03 points by researchers, and the understanding was rated 7.68 points by patients. Patient satisfaction was positively associated with more time for reflection. CONCLUSIONS: GPs were not satisfied with the information received on the participation of patients under their in clinical trials. Researchers were satisfied with the information they offered to patients, and were aware of the need to improve the information GPs received. Patients collaborated greatly towards biomedical research, expressed satisfaction with the overall process, and minimised the difficulties associated with participation
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Informed Consent , Clinical Trials as Topic , Physicians, Family/ethics , Patients , Research Personnel , Cross-Sectional Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires , Personal Satisfaction , Bioethics , Primary Health CareABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Adequate information for patients and respect for their autonomy are mandatory in research. This article examined insights of researchers, patients and general practitioners (GPs) on the informed consent process in clinical trials, and the role of the GP. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study using three questionnaires, informed consent reviews, medical records, and hospital discharge reports. SETTING: GPs, researchers and patients involved in clinical trials. PARTICIPANTS: Included, 504 GPs, 108 researchers, and 71 patients. RESULTS: Consulting the GP was recommended in 50% of the informed consents. Participation in clinical trials was shown in 33% of the medical records and 3% of the hospital discharge reports. GPs scored 3.54 points (on a 1-10 scale) on the assessment of the information received by the principal investigator. The readability of the informed consent sheet was rated 8.03 points by researchers, and the understanding was rated 7.68 points by patients. Patient satisfaction was positively associated with more time for reflection. CONCLUSIONS: GPs were not satisfied with the information received on the participation of patients under their in clinical trials. Researchers were satisfied with the information they offered to patients, and were aware of the need to improve the information GPs received. Patients collaborated greatly towards biomedical research, expressed satisfaction with the overall process, and minimised the difficulties associated with participation.
Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , General Practitioners , Informed Consent , Comprehension , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Research PersonnelABSTRACT
No disponible
