Impact of COVID-19 on Primary Care: Addressing Health Concerns and Older Patient Experience of Virtual Care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Context: COVID-19 has disrupted routine care for many patients. During the height of the pandemic, when primary care clinics were shuttered or only seeing urgent cases, patients postponed seeking routine care and few options for community-based care existed. As a workaround, virtual consultations—remote access using any form of communication or technology—were adopted. This was not without limitations, especially for older adults. Objective: This study sought to explore the primary care experiences of older adult patients and whether their health needs were addressed via in-person and virtual consultation during the first four waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Study Design and Analysis: This study employed a qualitative inquiry using interviews. Population Studied: Particpants included adults in a large western Canadian city who were 50 years of age and older, who had visited a primary care provider since March 2020 for a health concern not related to COVID-19. Interviews took place between August and October 2021. Instrument: Qualitative interviews were conducted over Zoom or telephone (based on patient comfort and access to video technology) and followed an investigator-designed semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Outcome Measures: Thematic analysis was used to make sense of and interpret the data. A codebook was developed, and from this, themes were determined based on their relevance to the data and the research purposes. Results: Thirty-eight participants (23 women and 15 men, average age 61 years [range 50-87]) participated. Participants were generally satisfied with the care they received from their primary care physicians. Those who had a long relationship with their practitioner could rely on previously built rapport. Some participants reported preferring virtual care to save on time spent in waiting rooms and the cost of transportation. Concerns presented included physicians being more rushed than usual, not taking time with new medical concerns, and creating a sense of fear and doom with the strict protocols in place to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Conclusions: Overall, patients were satisfied with the care they received from their primary care physicians. Tailoring virtual care to either phone or videoconferencing for those who have hearing impairments, language barriers, or poor connections (and who many need to see non-verbal cues or read lips) is important.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».