An Interpretive Description of Patient and Provider Perspectives on the Impact of the COVID‐19 Pandemic on Lung Transplant Care Access and Service Delivery in Alberta, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic impacted how health services were delivered for patients with chronic pulmonary conditions. To our knowledge, perceptions of patients with lung transplant (LT) and their providers on access to care and service delivery during the COVID‐19 pandemic have not been explored in our context of Alberta, Canada. Our objective was to explore LT patient and provider perspectives on the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on healthcare access and service delivery. Methods: We used interpretive description, a qualitative approach with the end‐goal of informing decisions and actions in clinical practice. Interviews were conducted virtually and confidentially transcribed verbatim. Data generation and analysis occurred concurrently. Analysis was informed by Braun and Clarke’s six phases of reflexive thematic analysis. Strategies to enhance rigor and trustworthiness of the findings were utilized. Results: We completed 17 interviews: 8 with patients and 9 with providers. Four key themes were generated: (1) “COVID‐19 created a relational wall;” (2) “Determining how care should be delivered was a juggling act;” (3) “Balancing supply and demand;” and (4) “The unique costs of being immunocompromised during a global pandemic.” The pandemic impacted social relationships for LT patients, especially through the use of virtual care. Several factors hindered access to care for LT patients. Provider participants highlighted how there were less transplants during the pandemic which created a backlog in transplant surgeries. Fear of COVID‐19 meant that some LT patients were hesitant to seek healthcare services, resulting in later‐term health consequences. A need for mental health services was identified among this population despite an apparent lack of available services. Participants highlighted the gap in COVID‐19 resources that now exists for this population since testing and treatments are no longer as readily available. Conclusions: In conclusion, provider participants did the best that they could with the circumstances they faced to provide high‐quality care to LT patients. However, while patient participants were generally understanding of circumstances, LT care suffered as a result of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Care for this population generally needs to be in‐person, but there is nuance surrounding this recommendation due to LT patients’ immunocompromised nature. Health system leaders can leverage our findings to implement learnings from the pandemic and continue to improve services for the ever‐growing LT population.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».