Differences between Rural and Urban Practices in the Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Outcomes from the PRICOV-19 Study in 38 Countries

Abstract

This paper explores the differences between rural and urban practices in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing aspects such as management of patient flow, infection prevention and control, information processing, communication and collaboration. Using a cross-sectional design, data were collected through the online PRICOV-19 questionnaire sent to general practices in 38 countries. Rural practices in our sample were smaller than urban-based practices. They reported an above-average number of old and multimorbid patients and a below-average number of patients with a migrant background or financial problems. Rural practices were less likely to provide leaflets and information, but were more likely to have ceased using the waiting room or to have made structural changes to their waiting room and to have changed their prescribing practices in terms of patients attending the practices. They were less likely to perform video consultations or use electronic prescription methods. Our findings show the existence of certain issues that could impact patient safety in rural areas more than in urban areas due to the underlying differences in population profile and supports. These could be used to plan the organization of care for similar future pandemic situations.

Distress and factors for maintaining good mental health among general practitioners during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: Results from the cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study in Austria

“…An important finding in our analysis is that what significantly protected Austrian GPs from experiencing distress was working in a rural area (Table 3). This was in contrast to an international study by Petrazzuoli et al [28], who found that rural practices tend to be smaller and smaller practices tend to be associated with higher distress [29]. However, in Austria, rural practices tend to be larger than those in urban areas because this compensates for lower GP density.…”

Moving forward after the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned in primary care from the multi-country PRICOV-19 study

“…The PRICOV-19 results show that GP practices were highly adaptive in their organisation to deliver safe care for COVID-19 and non-COVID patients. New measures were implemented rapidly, including new patient flow management, triage protocols, infection prevention measures, and communications, such as remote consultations [ 2 , 3 ]. Safety measures already in place before the pandemic, such as adequate time for reviewing guidelines, remained primarly in place.…”

Influence of practice location on prescribing, diabetes care, and colorectal cancer screening among Czech general practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…As far as theThe differences between rural and urban GP practices during the COVID-19 pandemic are concerned, they were proveddemonstrated in the general conditions of providing care, as shown in an international comparison [18]. The scopebreadth of the available data allowedwe had access to enabled us to quantify these potential differences inacross various activities to understand better , improving our understanding of how GP practices operatedfunctioned during the pandemic.…”