MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406954912 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofae631.2517

P-2367. Qualitative Analysis of Barriers to Outpatient Antiviral Treatment for COVID-19 and Influenza Patients Observed by Infectious Disease Specialists in North America, 2024

2025· article· en· W4406954912 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Souci Louis, D. Wang, Jordan Singleton, Dallas J. Smith, Anastasia S. Lambrou, Susan E. Beekmann, Philip M. Polgreen, Shikha Garg, Jessica N. Ricaldi, Timothy M. Uyeki, Scott Santibañez, Pragna Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Infectious disease (medical specialty)VirologyIntensive care medicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakDiseaseSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Family medicinePandemicGerontologyInternal medicineOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Antiviral medications for COVID-19 and influenza can mitigate disease severity in high-risk outpatients if taken early in the course of illness yet are underutilized. We sought to understand barriers to providers prescribing these medications. Table Thematic summary from infectious disease specialists outlining barriers to outpatient antiviral treatment for COVID-19 and influenza patients, United States, 2024 Methods We conducted an on-line survey regarding knowledge, attitudes, and practices of prescribing antiviral treatment for outpatients with COVID-19 and influenza. Respondents were asked about perceived barriers among providers treating COVID-19 and influenza outpatients in their institutions. Questions were structured using a Likert scale and were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach in Microsoft Excel. Results Of 1,898 infectious disease specialists across the United States and Canada who received the survey between 1/10/24 to 2/5/24, 565 (30%) responded, of whom 93% were infectious disease physicians and 7% were healthcare professionals. Surveyed physicians worked in university (45%), non-university teaching (24%), community (20%), city/county (4%), outpatient (0.4%), and veteran affairs hospital settings (6%) and 144 (25%) provided free text responses. The primary barrier to prescribing antivirals was provider skepticism (47%), due to patient symptoms deemed too mild for treatment and needing more evidence about effectiveness. This was followed by perceptions of limited accessibility (31%) related to high cost, limited hospital access, and difficulty administering some medications. Pharmacologic limitations (18%) were concerns about drug interactions, side effects, and incomplete medical history. Other barriers were timeliness of treatment within a short therapeutic window (15%) and patient skepticism (13%). Additional free text responses described successful hospital protocols and suggestions for encouraging antiviral prescribing. Conclusion These themes demonstrate a need for better education of providers about antiviral risks and benefits as well as improved access and coverage of life-saving medications. Infectious disease specialists provided useful insights which can help to shape clinical recommendations, future research for antiviral therapeutics, and public health messaging for improved patient care. Disclosures Philip M. Polgreen, MD, Eli Lily: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.379 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicRespiratory viral infections researchFrench-language works237,207