Dataset Information

Primary Care Practitioners' Barriers to and Experience of COVID-19 Epidemic Control in China: a Qualitative Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged in December 2019 and posed numerous challenges to China's health system. Almost 4 million primary care practitioners (PCPs) participated in controlling the outbreak. However, PCPs' barriers to and experience of the epidemic control remain unknown and are essential for improving countermeasures. OBJECTIVE:To better understand the barriers PCPs faced in COVID-19 epidemic control and their psychological and occupational impacts, and explore potential solutions. DESIGN:This qualitative study was conducted through semi-structured, in-depth interviews from February 12, to March 10, 2020. PARTICIPANTS:A purposive sample of frontline PCPs affiliated with either community health centers or township health centers in four provinces of China were recruited. APPROACH:Interviews were conducted by telephone, and then recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed. Themes surrounding PCPs' barriers to COVID-19 epidemic control, their experience, and potential solutions were iteratively identified using the constant comparative method. KEY RESULTS:Of the 21 PCPs interviewed, 10 (48%) were women and 5 (24%) worked in rural areas. Barriers to epidemic control in primary care included inappropriate PCP scheduling and role ambiguity, difficult tasks and inadequate capacities, and inexperienced community workers and insufficient cooperation. Some PCPs perceived respect and a sense of accomplishment and were preoccupied with the outbreak, while others were frustrated by fatigue and psychological distress. PCPs reported potential solutions for improving countermeasures, such as improving management, optimizing workflows, providing additional support, facilitating cooperation, and strengthening the primary care system. CONCLUSIONS:Due to their roles in controlling the COVID-19 epidemic, PCPs in China faced a series of barriers that affected them physically and mentally. Support for PCPs should help them to overcome these barriers and work efficiently. The current findings provide insight into the challenges and potential solutions for strengthening the preparedness and response of China's primary care system in future disease outbreaks.

SUBMITTER: Xu Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7458355 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Primary Care Practitioners' Barriers to and Experience of COVID-19 Epidemic Control in China: a Qualitative Study.

Xu Zhijie Z Ye Yuanqu Y Wang Yang Y Qian Yi Y Pan Jianjiang J Lu Yiting Y Fang Lizheng L

Journal of general internal medicine 20200831 11

<h4>Background</h4>The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged in December 2019 and posed numerous challenges to China's health system. Almost 4 million primary care practitioners (PCPs) participated in controlling the outbreak. However, PCPs' barriers to and experience of the epidemic control remain unknown and are essential for improving countermeasures.<h4>Objective</h4>To better understand the barriers PCPs faced in COVID-19 epidemic control and their psychological and occupational impac ...[more]

PMID: 32869200

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The implementation of early palliative care within a primary care setting is a recent academic topic. Recruiting General Practitioners (GPs) to participate in a palliative care study can be challenging. The pro-Spinoza project implemented a Care Pathway for Primary Palliative Care in 5 areas in Belgium. During this project, the feasibility of the recruitment of GPs and palliative care patients was evaluated. METHODS:The recruitment process was recorded in detail via an electronic logbook combining quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative recordings included the contact types and the number of contacts with eligible GPs and were analysed descriptively. Qualitative recordings included field notes with feedback from the GPs and other stakeholders and were thematically analysed starting from the Grol and Wensing framework for professional behaviour change. RESULTS:Of 4065 eligible GPs working in 5 areas under research, 787 GPs (19%) were contacted individually, 398 GPs (9,8%) were contacted face-to-face and most of these 398 GPs showed high interest in the topic. 112 GPs (2,8%) signed the collaboration agreement, but finally only 65 GPs (1,6%) delivered at least a completed baseline-questionnaire. Despite the initial interest in participating, the unpredictable and busy daily workloads of the GPs, as well as inexperience with research protocols, impeded the ability of the GPs to fully engage in the study. This resulted in the high dropout rate. Participating GPs reported that they had underestimated the effort required to effectively participate in the project. CONCLUSIONS:Recruitment of GPs to palliative care research is challenging. Primary care is a vital service to engage in palliative care research however the practical limitations reduce the ability of the service to effectively engage in the research. More research is needed to determine how GPs might be better supported in research. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02266069 , Registered 16th October 2014, retrospectively registered.

Project description:Importance:Safety-net health systems across the country are implementing electronic consult (eConsult) systems in which primary care practitioners (PCPs) submit all requests for specialty assistance electronically to be reviewed and discussed with specialists. Evidence suggests that eConsult systems can make significant improvements in specialty access, but the outcomes of these systems for frontline PCPs is poorly understood. Objective:To understand PCP perceptions of the results of eConsult initiation on PCP workflow, specialist access, and patient care. Design, Setting, and Participants:Qualitative interviews were conducted from December 1, 2016, to April 15, 2017, with 40 safety-net PCPs in Los Angeles County who use the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS) eConsult system. Interviewees were recruited to include diversity in PCP type, practice setting, and employer (DHS employed vs DHS affiliated). Participants were interviewed about their perceptions of clinical workflow, access to specialists, relationships with specialists, and referral decision making. Main Outcomes and Measures:Perceptions of the results of eConsult, including positive and negative themes and remaining perceived gaps in specialty care. Results:Of the 40 participants, 27 (68%) were women; 24 (60%) PCPs performed 5 or more eConsults per week. Primary care practitioners' perceptions of eConsult clustered around 4 main themes: access and timeliness of specialty care, shift of work to PCPs, relationships with specialists, and eConsult interface issues. Many PCPs praised the improved timeliness of specialist input with eConsult, as well as the added clinical and educational value of dialogue with specialists, particularly compared with the limitations of the prior referral process. However, PCPs also consistently perceived that eConsult shifted some of the work of specialty care to them. Many PCPs believed that this extra burden was worth the effort given the benefits of eConsult, such as improved timeliness of care and ability to manage specialty conditions. In contrast, others were frustrated by the increased administrative burden, broadened clinical responsibility, and restructuring of specialty care delivery. Conclusions and Relevance:While associated with improved specialty care access, eConsult systems simultaneously created new challenges for PCPs, such as an increased burden of work in providing specialty care. Primary care practitioners varied in their enthusiasm for these workflow changes with diverging perceptions of the same processes. Our findings provide insights on challenges future primary care transformation efforts may face.

Project description:BackgroundWith more patients in need of oncological care, there is a growing interest to transfer survivorship care from specialist to general practitioner (GP). The ongoing I CARE study was initiated in 2015 in the Netherlands to compare (usual) surgeon- to GP-led survivorship care, with or without access to a supporting eHealth application (Oncokompas).MethodsSemi-structured interviews were held at two separate points in time (i.e. after 1- and 5-years of care) to explore GPs' experiences with delivering this survivorship care intervention, and study its implementation into daily practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 GPs. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework.ResultsOverall, delivering survivorship care was not deemed difficult and dealing with cancer repercussions was already considered part of a GPs' work. Though GPs readily identified advantages for patients, caregivers and society, differences were seen in GPs' commitment to the intervention and whether it felt right for them to be involved. Patients' initiative with respect to planning, absence of symptoms and regular check-ups due to other chronic care were considered to facilitate the delivery of care. Prominent barriers included GPs' lack of experience and routine, but also lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for organising care. Need for a monitoring system was often mentioned to reduce the risk of non-compliance. GPs were reticent about a possible future transfer of survivorship care towards primary care due to increases in workload and financial constraints. GPs were not aware of their patients' use of eHealth.ConclusionsGPs' opinions and beliefs about a possible future role in colon cancer survivorship care vary. Though GPs recognize potential benefit, there is no consensus about transferring survivorship care to primary care on a permanent basis. Barriers and facilitators to implementation highlight the importance of both personal and system level factors. Conditions are put forth relating to time, reorganisation of infrastructure, extra personnel and financial compensation.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register; NTR4860 . Registered on the 2nd of October 2014.

Project description:Medical overuse is a topic of growing interest in health care systems and especially in primary care. It comprises both over investigation and overtreatment. Quaternary prevention strategies aim at protecting patients from unnecessary or harmful medicine. The objective of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of relevant aspects of medical overuse in primary care from the perspective of German general practitioners (GPs). We focused on the scope, consequences and drivers of medical overuse and strategies to reduce it (=quaternary prevention).We used the qualitative Grounded Theory approach. Theoretical sampling was carried out to recruit GPs in Bavaria, Germany. We accessed the field of research through GPs with academic affiliation, recommendations by interview partners and personal contacts. They differed in terms of primary care experience, gender, region, work experience abroad, academic affiliation, type of specialist training, practice organisation and position. Qualitative in-depth face-to-face interviews with a semi-structured interview guide were conducted (n =?13). The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis was carried out using open and axial coding.GPs defined medical overuse as unnecessary investigations and treatment that lack patient benefit or bear the potential to cause harm. They observed that medical overuse takes place in all three German reimbursement categories: statutory health insurance, private insurance and individual health services (direct payment). GPs criticised the poor acceptance of gate-keeping in German primary care. They referred to a low-threshold referral policy and direct patient access to outpatient secondary care, leading to specialist treatment without clear medical indication. The GPs described various direct drivers of medical overuse within their direct area of influence. They also emphasised indirect drivers related to system or societal processes. The proposed strategies for reducing medical overuse included a well-founded wait-and-see approach, medical education, a trustful doctor-patient relationship, the improvement of primary/health care structures and the involvement of patients and society.GPs are frequently located at the starting point of the diagnostic and treatment process. They have the potential to play a vital role in quaternary prevention. This requires a debate going beyond the medical profession and involving society as a whole.

Project description:BackgroundIn China, the primary health care (PHC) system has been designated responsible for control and prevention of COVID-19, but not treatment. Suspected COVID-19 cases presenting to PHC facilities must be transferred to specialist fever clinics. This study aims to understand the impact of COVID-19 on PHC delivery and on antibiotic prescribing at a community level in rural areas of central China.MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 PHC practitioners and seven patients recruited from two township health centres and nine village clinics in two rural residential areas of Anhui province. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.ResultsPHC practitioners reported a major shift in their work away from seeing and treating patients (due to government-mandated referral to specialist Covid clinics) to focus on the key public health roles of tracing, screening and educating in rural areas. The additional work, risk, and financial pressure that PHC practitioners faced, placed considerable strain on them, particularly those working in village clinics. Face to face PHC provision was reduced and there was no substitution with consultations by phone or app, which practitioners attributed to the fact that most of their patients were elderly and not willing or able to switch. Practitioners saw COVID-19 as outside of their area of expertise and very different to the non-COVID-19 respiratory tract infections that they frequently treated pre-pandemic. They reported that antibiotic prescribing was reduced overall because far fewer patients were attending rural PHC facilities, but otherwise their antibiotic prescribing practices remained unchanged.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic had considerable impact on PHC in rural China. Practitioners took on substantial additional workload as part of epidemic control and fewer patients were seen in PHC. The reduction in patients seen and treated in PHC led to a reduction in antibiotic prescribing, although clinical practice remains unchanged. Since COVID-19 epidemic control work has been designated as a long-term task in China, rural PHC clinics now face the challenge of how to balance their principal clinical and increased public health roles and, in the case of the village clinics, remain financially viable.

Project description:AimTo understand COVID patients' experiences of and perspectives on disclosure of their illness and to explore and describe the factors affecting disclosure decisions among COVID patients in China.BackgroundDisease disclosure is a critical component of prevention and control of a virus outbreak, and this is especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding COVID patients' experiences and perspectives on disclosure could play a vital role in COVID management.DesignA qualitative study.MethodsA semi-structured interview guide was used to conduct qualitative in-depth interviews from April to June 2020. All the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and then, a thematic analysis was conducted. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) were applied to this study.ResultsA total of 26 COVID-confirmed patients were recruited for the in-depth interviews. Four themes emerged from the thematic analysis on disclosure: persons disclosed to, reasons for disclosure, reasons for nondisclosure and impact of disclosure. The participants disclosed their COVID diagnosis to different groups, including family, close friends, community members and workplace contacts. The main reasons for disclosure included the following: government policy, social responsibility, gaining support and fear of being blamed for nondisclosure. However, some participants decided not to disclose to some groups for fear of facing stigma and discrimination or to protect family members from discrimination. Despite the potential benefits of obtaining support after disclosure, many participants did experience stigma and discrimination, privacy exposure, psychological distress and social isolation.ConclusionsAn individual's decision as to whether to disclose their COVID-positive status is affected by many factors. To prevent the spread of COVID-19 and reduce the potential risks of disclosure, such as discrimination and privacy exposure, a balanced intervention should be designed to protect COVID patients and to secure any contact tracing. Therefore, the chances of discrimination could be decreased and patients' confidentiality could be protected.Relevance to clinical practiceAs the number of COVID patients increases, disclosure of an individual's infectious status is encouraged by health departments. Despite the potential benefits of disclosure, discrimination and privacy exposure should not be ignored. A disclosure protocol is necessary to ensure patients' privacy regarding their COVID status.

Project description:BackgroundRefugees are a particularly vulnerable group in relation to the development of mental illness and many may have been subjected to torture or other traumatic experiences. General practitioners are gatekeepers for access to several parts of the psychiatric system and knowledge of their patients' refugee background is crucial to secure adequate care. The aim of this study is to investigate how general practitioners experience providing care to refugees with mental health problems.MethodsThe study was conducted as part of an EU project on European Best Practices in Access, Quality and Appropriateness of Health Services for Immigrants in Europe (EUGATE). Semi-structured interviews were carried out with nine general practitioners in the vicinity of Copenhagen purposively selected from areas with a high proportion of immigrants. The analysis of the interviews is inspired by qualitative content analysis.ResultsOne of the main themes identified in the analysis is communication. This includes the use of professional interpreters and that communication entails more than sharing a common language. Quality of care is another theme that emerges and includes awareness of possible trauma history, limited possibilities for refugees to participate in certain treatments due to language barriers and feelings of hopelessness in the general practitioners. The general practitioners may also choose different referral pathways for refugees and they report that their patients lack understanding regarding the differences between psychological problems and physical symptoms.ConclusionGeneral practitioners experience that providing care to refugees differs from providing care for patients from the majority population. The different strategies employed by the general practitioners in the health care treatment of refugees may be the result of the great diversity in the organisation of general practice in Denmark and the lack of a national strategy in the health care management of refugees. The findings from this study suggest that the development of conversational models for general practitioners including points to be aware of in the treatment of refugee patients may serve as a support in the management of refugee patients in primary care.

Dataset Information

Primary Care Practitioners' Barriers to and Experience of COVID-19 Epidemic Control in China: a Qualitative Study.

Publications

Primary Care Practitioners' Barriers to and Experience of COVID-19 Epidemic Control in China: a Qualitative Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets