Laypersons' perception of common cold and influenza prevention : a qualitative study in Austria, Belgium and Croatia

Background: Common cold and influenza result in an increased number of primary care consultations, significant work/school absences and cause a socio-economic burden. Laypeople's perceptions and knowledge regarding common cold and influenza prevention is poorly understood and under-researched. Objectives: Our study explores laypeople's knowledge of prevention of common cold and influenza across three European countries. Furthermore, it investigates if there is any distinction between prevention activities focussing on reasons impacting the attitude towards influenza vaccination as well as investigating cross-country variation. Methods: In total, 85 semi-structured individual interviews were performed across three European countries (Austria n = 31, Belgium n = 30, Croatia n = 24). Qualitative thematic content analysis was performed. Results: Most participants across all three countries made no distinction between the prevention of the common cold and influenza and referenced the same preventative measures for both conditions. They mainly expressed negative attitudes towards influenza vaccination possibly effective but only intended for high-risk groups (bedridden/older people, chronic patients or health workers). There were very few cross-country differences in results. Conclusion: The perception of health risk of contracting influenza and a primary healthcare physicians' recommendation played an important role in shaping participants' decisions towards vaccination. Primary healthcare physicians are invited to assess and if necessary adjust inappropriate prevention behaviour through their everyday patient consultations as well as add to the knowledge about influenza severity and influenza vaccination benefits to their patients

'With fever it's the real flu I would say' : laypersons' perception of common cold and influenza and their differences : a qualitative study in Austria, Belgium and Croatia

Background: There is little research on laypersons' perceptions regarding common cold and influenza, their symptomatic distinction and considerations of risk. This study investigates understanding of pathogenesis across three European countries and provides a knowledge base from which adequate prevention recommendations and treatment advice can be derived. Methods: This is a qualitative research study. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 85 participants from three European countries (Austria n=31, Belgium n=30, Croatia n=24) about their experiences, perceptions and risk considerations regarding the common cold and influenza. We performed a qualitative thematic content analysis. Results: Three main themes were identified: common cold as harmless with individualistic symptoms; influenza as mainly distinguishable by fever, confinement to bed and severity of symptoms, but description about onset and duration are diverse; and views on pathogenesis contain references to disease causing agents and circumstances. Overall we found that risk perception is based largely on personal experience and risk is assumed moderate for both diseases. Conclusions: Study participants possessed a fairly good understanding of symptoms, differences and pathogenesis of common cold and influenza; but explanations integrated misconceptions, such as misinterpretation of fever, disease continuums, diverse onset ideas etc. Perceptions were largely based on lived experiences and interventions for prevention and treatment should be led by health care workers and focus on these issues. Basic consultations, awareness raising activities and other knowledge disseminations strategies should include aspects of communicableness and the self-limiting nature of both diseases. An informed understanding of both infectious diseases is crucial and may also increase influenza vaccination coverage in the three respective countries effectively

Clinical pathway of COVID-19 patients in primary health care in 30 European countries : Eurodata study

BackgroundMost COVID-19 patients were treated in primary health care (PHC) in Europe.ObjectivesTo demonstrate the scope of PHC workflow during the COVID-19 pandemic emphasising similarities and differences of patient's clinical pathways in Europe.MethodsDescriptive, cross-sectional study with data acquired through a semi-structured questionnaire in PHC in 30 European countries, created ad hoc and agreed upon among all researchers who participated in the study. GPs from each country answered the approved questionnaire. Main variable: PHC COVID-19 acute clinical pathway. All variables were collected from each country as of September 2020.ResultsCOVID-19 clinics in PHC facilities were organised in 8/30. Case detection and testing were performed in PHC in 27/30 countries. RT-PCR and lateral flow tests were performed in PHC in 23/30, free of charge with a medical prescription. Contact tracing was performed mainly by public health authorities. Mandatory isolation ranged from 5 to 14 days. Sick leave certification was given exclusively by GPs in 21/30 countries. Patient hotels or other resources to isolate patients were available in 12/30. Follow-up to monitor the symptoms and/or new complementary tests was made mainly by phone call (27/30). Chest X-ray and phlebotomy were performed in PHC in 18/30 and 23/30 countries, respectively. Oxygen and low-molecular-weight heparin were available in PHC (21/30).ConclusionIn Europe PHC participated in many steps to diagnose, treat and monitor COVID-19 patients. Differences among countries might be addressed at European level for the management of future pandemics.Peer reviewe

European general practitioners’/family physicians’ attitudes towards person-centered care and factors that influence its implementation in everyday practice : preliminary results

Background: Person-centered care (PCC) is widely acknowledged as a core value in family medicine and has been associated with many positive outcomes of care. There has been no comparison of GPs attitudes towards person-centeredness across European countries. Research questions: To investigate GPs/FPs attitudes towards person-centeredness. To understand GPs/FPs facilitators and barriers related to practicing PCC. To document obstacles to practicing PCC in practice. Method: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study across 22 European countries (finished in one country, in 10 countries ongoing, in 11 countries finishing the preparatory phase). In each country, the population of GPs/FPs will be reached through the official mailing list of the national medical associations. The study instrument consists of four parts: General information about the doctor and the doctor's office, Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Patient Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS) and Facilitators and barriers to PCC in everyday practice. The Ethics Committee, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb approved the project. The study will be carried out in close collaboration with the European Association for Quality and Patient Safety in Primary Care (EQuiP) and the European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN). The study will be coordinated by the Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine University of Zagreb (Croatia). The project is supported by the EGPRN Grant. Results: GPs/FPs attitudes towards person-centeredness will be described and investigated in correlation to sociodemographic data and work stress in each participating European country. GPs/FPs facilitators and barriers to practicing PCC in everyday practice will be analysed. Data will be analysed using software package STATISTICA 7.1 (StatSoft Inc, Tulsa, OK, USA), and P < .05 will be considered statistically significant. Conclusions: Regardless of the specific context of care that is highly dependent on the patient, physician and healthcare system characteristics, PCC represents a core value of family medicine that should be implemented in GPs/FPs everyday work across Europe

The role of primary health care in long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in 30 European countries : a retrospective descriptive study (Eurodata study)

Background and aim:Primary health care (PHC) supported long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in attending COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study is to describe the role of PHC in LTCFs in Europe during the early phase of the pandemic.Methods:Retrospective descriptive study from 30 European countries using data from September 2020 collected with an ad hoc semi-structured questionnaire. Related variables are SARS-CoV-2 testing, contact tracing, follow-up, additional testing, and patient care.Results:Twenty-six out of the 30 European countries had PHC involvement in LTCFs during the COVID-19 pandemic. PHC participated in initial medical care in 22 countries, while, in 15, PHC was responsible for SARS-CoV-2 test along with other institutions. Supervision of individuals in isolation was carried out mostly by LTCF staff, but physical examination or symptom's follow-up was performed mainly by PHC.Conclusion:PHC has participated in COVID-19 pandemic assistance in LTCFs in coordination with LTCF staff, public health officers, and hospitals.Peer reviewe

Clinical pathway of COVID-19 patients in primary health care in 30 European countries: Eurodata study

BACKGROUND: Most COVID-19 patients were treated in primary health care (PHC) in Europe. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the scope of PHC workflow during the COVID-19 pandemic emphasising similarities and differences of patient's clinical pathways in Europe. METHODS: Descriptive, cross-sectional study with data acquired through a semi-structured questionnaire in PHC in 30 European countries, created ad hoc and agreed upon among all researchers who participated in the study. GPs from each country answered the approved questionnaire. Main variable: PHC COVID-19 acute clinical pathway. All variables were collected from each country as of September 2020. RESULTS: COVID-19 clinics in PHC facilities were organised in 8/30. Case detection and testing were performed in PHC in 27/30 countries. RT-PCR and lateral flow tests were performed in PHC in 23/30, free of charge with a medical prescription. Contact tracing was performed mainly by public health authorities. Mandatory isolation ranged from 5 to 14 days. Sick leave certification was given exclusively by GPs in 21/30 countries. Patient hotels or other resources to isolate patients were available in 12/30. Follow-up to monitor the symptoms and/or new complementary tests was made mainly by phone call (27/30). Chest X-ray and phlebotomy were performed in PHC in 18/30 and 23/30 countries, respectively. Oxygen and low-molecular-weight heparin were available in PHC (21/30). CONCLUSION: In Europe PHC participated in many steps to diagnose, treat and monitor COVID-19 patients. Differences among countries might be addressed at European level for the management of future pandemics