Search

Background: With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the large uptake in virtual care in primary care in Canada, the care of patients with type 2 diabetes has been greatly affected. This includes decreased in-person visits, laboratory testing and in-person assessments such as blood pressure (BP). No studies have investigated if these changes persisted with pandemic progression, and it is unclear if shifts impacted patient groups uniformly. The purpose of this paper was to examine changes in diabetes care pre, early, and later pandemic across different patient groups. Methods: A repeated cross-sectional design with an open cohort was used to investigate diabetes care in adults with type 2 diabetes for a 6-month interval from March 14 to September 13 over three consecutive years: 2019 (pre-pandemic period), 2020 (early pandemic period), and 2021 (later pandemic period). Data for this study were abstracted from the University of Toronto Practice-Based Research Network (UTOPIAN) Data Safe Haven, a primary care electronic medical records database in Ontario, Canada. Changes in diabetes care, which included primary care total visits, in-person visits, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing, and BP measurements were evaluated across the phases of the pandemic. Difference in diabetes care across patient groups, including age, sex, income quintile, prior HbA1c levels, and prior BP levels, were assessed. Results: A total of 39,401 adults with type 2 diabetes were included in the study. Compared to the 6-month pre-pandemic period, having any in-person visits decreased significantly early pandemic (OR = 0.079 (0.076–0.082)), with a partial recovery later pandemic (OR = 0.162 (95% CI: 0.157–0.169). Compared to the pre-pandemic period, there was a significant decrease early pandemic for total visits (OR = 0.486 (95% CI: 0.470–0.503)), HbA1c testing (OR = 0.401 (95% CI: 0.389–0.413)), and BP measurement (OR = 0.121 (95% CI: 0.116–0.125)), with partial recovery later pandemic. Conclusions: All measures of diabetes care were substantially decreased early pandemic, with a partial recovery later pandemic across all patient groups. With the increase in virtual care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, diabetes care has been negatively impacted over 1-year after pandemic onset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Performing cardiovascular and cancer screenings in target populations can reduce mortality. Visiting a General Practitioner (GP) once a year is related to an increased likelihood of preventive care. The aim of this study was to analyse the influence of visiting a GP in the last year on the delivery of preventive services based on sex and household income. Methods: Cross-sectional study using data collected from the European Health Interview Survey 2013–2015 of individuals aged 40–74 years from 29 European countries. The variables included: sociodemographic factors (age, sex, and household income (HHI) quintiles [HHI 1: lowest income, HHI 5: more affluent]), lifestyle factors, comorbidities, and preventive care services (cardiometabolic, influenza vaccination, and cancer screening). Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and multilevel models (level 1: citizen, level 2: country) were performed. Results: 242,212 subjects were included, 53.7% were female. The proportion of subjects who received any cardiometabolic screening (92.4%) was greater than cancer screening (colorectal cancer: 44.1%, gynaecologic cancer: 40.0%) and influenza vaccination. Individuals who visited a GP in the last year were more prone to receive preventive care services (cardiometabolic screening: adjusted OR (aOR): 7.78, 95% CI: 7.43–8.15; colorectal screening aOR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.80–1.95; mammography aOR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.69–1.83 and Pap smear test: aOR: 1.89, 95% CI:1.85–1.94). Among those who visited a GP in the last year, the highest ratios of cardiometabolic screening and cancer screening benefited those who were more affluent. Women underwent more blood pressure measurements than men regardless of the HHI. Men were more likely to undergo influenza vaccination than women regardless of the HHI. The highest differences between countries were observed for influenza vaccination, with a median odds ratio (MOR) of 6.36 (under 65 years with comorbidities) and 4.30 (over 65 years with comorbidities), followed by colorectal cancer screening with an MOR of 2.26. Conclusions: Greater adherence to preventive services was linked to individuals who had visited a GP at least once in the past year. Disparities were evident among those with lower household incomes who visited a GP. The most significant variability among countries was observed in influenza vaccination and colorectal cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Living in rural areas is a major contributor of health inequity. Tackling health inequity is important for primary care physicians. Therefore, it is important to compare the quality of primary care between rural and urban areas. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the association between rurality and patient experience (PX) in Japan using validated measures. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted using online surveys. Participants were selected using a stratified random sample based on sex and age. The Japanese version of the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure (PCPCM) was used as an indicator of PX. We used the Rurality Index for Japan (RIJ) to measure rurality. Furthermore, we used multivariate linear regression analysis to examine the relationship between the RIJ and PCPCM after adjusting for confounders. Results: Of the 1112 eligible participants, 800 responded to the survey (response rate:71.9%). The mean PCPCM scores were 2.46 (standard deviation: 0.73) and median RIJ was 15 (interquartile range: 6–33). The crude and adjusted coefficients of rurality were − 0.02 (− 0.006–0.001, p = 0.114) and − 0.02 (− 0.005–0.001), respectively, demonstrating that rurality was not significantly associated with the total PCPCM score. Subgroup analyses were similar to the main analyses. Conclusion: We found that PX in primary care did not differ by rurality in the general Japanese population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]