The battle to retain GPs: the importance of undergraduate training in general practice

Cooper, Maxwell; Sornalingam, Sangeetha; Health, Jason

doi:10.1136/bmj.p870

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These infection incidence rates were based on national/regional data depending on whether the study population originated from an entire nation or a limited region within a nation. ( Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, 2023a ; Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, 2023b ; Government of Ontario, 2023 ; Government of the Netherlands, 2023 ; Cooper et al, 2023 ; IARC, 2022 ; Mathieu, 2022 ; MDHHS, 2023 ; Medicaid.gov, 2022 ; NCDHHS, 2023 ; NHS England, 2021 ; OECD, 2021a ; PAHO, 2020 ; Sciensano, the Belgian Institute for Health, 2023 ; SPICe, 2023 ; State of Michigan, 2020 ; State of North Carolina, 2020 ; The Scottish Government, 2022 ; UK Government, 2023 ; WHO, 2023 ; WHO, 2022 ; WHO, 2022 ; Worldometer, 2022 ; WHO, 2021 ; Yucatan Times, 2021 ). † Types of restrictions will include restrictions that were withdrawn at any point of the study period.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During COVID-19, many countries implemented various mitigation methods to reduce transmission and of course mortality. To summarize these different infection control measures, Table 1 shows that all 13 countries/nations had international movement controls in place, 23 study-specific regions had internal movement controls, 21 study-specific regions had stay-at home requirements in place, 1 study-specific region (Northern Italy, Emilia Romagna) had public transport closures, 23 study-specific regions had bans on gatherings >10 people, 24 study-specific regions had public events bans in place, 24 study-specific regions had workplace closures in place, and 23 study-specific regions had in-person school closures in place ( Mathieu, 2022 ; CIHI, 2022 ; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2021 ; Commonwealth of Virginia, 2023 ; Cooper et al, 2023 ; SPICe, 2023 ; State of Michigan, 2020 ; State of North Carolina, 2020 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used the categories of infection control measures as presented in Li et al, 2021 ‘The Temporal Association of introducing and lifting non-pharmaceutical interventions with the time-varying reproduction number (R) of SARS-COV-2: A modelling study across 131 countries. ’ In addition, we pulled data on infection rates collected from the Oxford COVID-19 policy tracker and devolved statewide healthcare organization websites in Canada, the USA, and the UK ( Mathieu, 2022 ; CIHI, 2022 ; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2021 ; Commonwealth of Virginia, 2023 ; Cooper et al, 2023 ; SPICe, 2023 ; State of Michigan, 2020 ; State of North Carolina, 2020 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A rapid review of COVID-19’s global impact on breast cancer screening participation rates and volumes from January to December 2020

Lee,

Xu,

Dozier

et al. 2023

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 has strained population breast mammography screening programs that aim to diagnose and treat breast cancers earlier. As the pandemic has affected countries differently, we aimed to quantify changes in breast screening volume and uptake during the first year of COVID-19 crisis. We systematically searched Medline, the WHO (World Health Organization) COVID-19 database, and governmental databases. Studies covering January 2020 to March 2022 were included. We extracted and analyzed data regarding study methodology, screening volume and uptake. To assess for risk-of-bias, we used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Twenty-six cross-sectional descriptive studies (focusing on 13 countries) were included out of 935 independent records. Reductions in screening volume and uptake rates were observed among eight countries. Changes in screening participation volume in five countries with national population-based screening ranged from -13% to –31%. Among two countries with limited population-based programs the decline ranged from -61% to -41%. Within the USA, population participation volumes varied ranging from +18% to -39% with suggestion of differences by insurance status (HMO, Medicare, and low-income programs). Almost all studies had high risk-of-bias due to insufficient statistical analysis and confounding factors. Extent of COVID-19-induced reduction in breast screening participation volume differed by region and data suggested potential differences by healthcare setting (e.g., national health insurance vs private health care). Recovery efforts should monitor access to screening and early diagnosis to determine if prevention services need strengthening to increase coverage of disadvantaged groups and reduce disparities.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A rapid review of COVID-19’s global impact on breast cancer screening participation rates and volumes from January to December 2020

Lee,

Xu,

Dozier

et al. 2023

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We previously emphasised that undergraduate training in general practice is critical for retaining general practitioners 1. In addition, upstream training in “community generalism” is essential for a resilient and sustainable GP workforce.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%