Background During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the number of consultations and diagnoses in primary care and referrals to specialist care declined substantially compared to prepandemic levels. Beyond deferral of elective non-COVID-19 care by healthcare providers, it is unclear to what extent healthcare avoidance by community-dwelling individuals contributed to this decline in routine healthcare utilisation. Moreover, it is uncertain which specific symptoms were left unheeded by patients and which determinants predispose to healthcare avoidance in the general population. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed prevalence of healthcare avoidance during the pandemic from a patient perspective, including symptoms that were left unheeded, as well as determinants of healthcare avoidance. Methods and findings On April 20, 2020, a paper COVID-19 survey addressing healthcare utilisation, socioeconomic factors, mental and physical health, medication use, and COVID-19–specific symptoms was sent out to 8,732 participants from the population-based Rotterdam Study (response rate 73%). All questionnaires were returned before July 10, 2020. By hand, prevalence of healthcare avoidance was subsequently verified through free text analysis of medical records of general practitioners. Odds ratios (ORs) for avoidance were determined using logistic regression models, adjusted for age, sex, and history of chronic diseases. We found that 1,142 of 5,656 included participants (20.2%) reported having avoided healthcare. Of those, 414 participants (36.3%) reported symptoms that potentially warranted urgent evaluation, including limb weakness (13.6%), palpitations (10.8%), and chest pain (10.2%). Determinants related to avoidance were older age (adjusted OR 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.21]), female sex (1.58 [1.38 to 1.82]), low educational level (primary education versus higher vocational/university 1.21 [1.01 to 1.46), poor self-appreciated health (per level decrease 2.00 [1.80 to 2.22]), unemployment (versus employed 2.29 [1.54 to 3.39]), smoking (1.34 [1.08 to 1.65]), concern about contracting COVID-19 (per level increase 1.28 [1.19 to 1.38]) and symptoms of depression (per point increase 1.13 [1.11 to 1.14]) and anxiety (per point increase 1.16 [1.14 to 1.18]). Study limitations included uncertainty about (perceived) severity of the reported symptoms and potentially limited generalisability given the ethnically homogeneous study population. Conclusions In this population-based cross-sectional study, 1 in 5 individuals avoided healthcare during lockdown in the COVID-19 pandemic, often for potentially urgent symptoms. Healthcare avoidance was strongly associated with female sex, fragile self-appreciated health, and high levels of depression and anxiety. These results emphasise the need for targeted public education urging these vulnerable patients to timely seek medical care for their symptoms to mitigate major health consequences.

Background and objectivesAlthough there is evidence of disruption in acute cerebrovascular and cardiovascular care during the COVID-19 pandemic, its downstream effect in primary care is less clear. We investigated how the pandemic affected utilization of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular care in general practices (GPs) and determined changes in GP-recorded diagnoses of selected cerebrovascular and cardiovascular outcomes.MethodsFrom electronic health records of 166,929 primary care patients aged 30 or over within the Rotterdam region, the Netherlands, we extracted the number of consultations related to cerebrovascular and cardiovascular care, and first diagnoses of selected cerebrovascular and cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, lipid disorders), conditions and events (angina, atrial fibrillation, TIA, myocardial infarction, stroke). We quantified changes in those outcomes during the first COVID-19 wave (March-May 2020) and thereafter (June-December 2020) by comparing them to the same period in 2016-2019. We also estimated the number of potentially missed diagnoses for each outcome.ResultsThe number of GP consultations related to cerebrovascular and cardiovascular care declined by 38% (0.62, 95% CI: 0.56-0.68) during the first wave, as compared to expected counts based on pre-pandemic levels. Substantial declines in the number of new diagnoses were observed for cerebrovascular events: 37% for TIA (0.63, 0.41-0.96), and 29% for stroke (0.71, 0.59 to 0.84), while no significant changes were observed for cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction (0.91, 0.74-1.14), angina (0.77, 0.48-1.25)). The counts across individual diagnoses recovered following June 2020, but the number of GP consultations related to cerebrovascular and cardiovascular care remained lower than expected also throughout the June-December period (0.93, 0.88-0.98).DiscussionWhile new diagnoses of acute cardiovascular events remained stable during the COVID19 pandemic, diagnoses of cerebrovascular events declined substantially compared to pre-pandemic levels, possibly due to incorrect perception of risk by patients. These findings emphasize the need to improve symptom recognition of cerebrovascular events among the general public and to encourage urgent presentation despite any physical distancing measures.

The Rotterdam Study is an ongoing prospective, population-based cohort study that started in 1989 in the city of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The study aims to unravel etiology, preclinical course, natural history and potential targets for intervention for chronic diseases in mid-life and late-life. It focuses on cardiovascular, endocrine, hepatic, neurological, ophthalmic, psychiatric, dermatological, otolaryngological, locomotor, and respiratory diseases. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a substudy was designed and embedded within the Rotterdam Study. On the 20th of April, 2020, all living non-institutionalized participants of the Rotterdam Study (n = 8732) were invited to participate in this sub-study by filling out a series of questionnaires administered over a period of 8 months. These questionnaires included questions on COVID-19 related symptoms and risk factors, characterization of lifestyle and mental health changes, and determination of health care seeking and health care avoiding behavior during the pandemic. As of May 2021, the questionnaire had been sent out repeatedly for a total of six times with an overall response rate of 76%. This article provides an overview of the rationale, design, and implementation of this sub-study nested within the Rotterdam Study. Finally, initial results on participant characteristics and prevalence of COVID-19 in this community-dwelling population are shown.

Background Detailed community-based perspectives on patient experiences with telemedicine are currently lacking, yet essential to assess clinical applicability of telemedicine during and beyond pandemics, alike COVID-19. The aim of this study was to expose patient perspectives on virtual compared to in-person consultations, including determinants of these preferences. Methods We invited 5864 participants of the population-based Rotterdam Study to fill in a validated questionnaire using both close-ended and free-text questions. The questionnaire was sent on 30 July 2020, following a period of lockdowns and closures of non-essential workplaces. It assessed preferences for physician contact, healthcare utilisation, socioeconomic factors, and overall health. Those who experienced at least one virtual consultation (telephone or video call) between March 2020 and the beginning of July 2020 were asked whether those consultations were more, equally or less pleasant than in-person consultations, and to detail their experiences through free-text comments. These narrative data were examined using thematic analysis. Results 4514 participants completed the questionnaire (response rate 77.0%, 58.7% women, mean age 70.8 ± 10.5 years). 1103 participants (24.4%) reported having had experience with virtual consultations. Half of these participants considered virtual consultations less pleasant than in-person consultations (N = 556; 50.4%), while 11.5% found it more pleasant. In total, we coded free-text comments of 752 participants. Prominent themes behind patient preferences for virtual or in-person consultations were lack of nonverbal communication, lack of physical examination, consultation scheduling, personal circumstances, and the presence of somatic and/or language barriers. Conclusions Based on the experiences of a large elderly patient population, we showed that preference for virtual or in-person consultations is dependent on personal and situational variety, and their interplay. Healthcare providers should consider patients’ complex care needs and evaluate the potential added value of nonverbal communication and physical examination before scheduling a virtual consultation.

The Rotterdam Study is an ongoing prospective, population-based cohort study that started in 1989 in the city of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The study aims to unravel etiology, preclinical course, natural history and potential targets for intervention for chronic diseases in mid-life and late-life. It focuses on cardiovascular, endocrine, hepatic, neurological, ophthalmic, psychiatric, dermatological, otolaryngological, locomotor, and respiratory diseases. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a substudy was designed and embedded within the Rotterdam Study. On the 20th of April, 2020, all living non-institutionalized participants of the Rotterdam Study (n = 8,732) were invited to participate in this sub-study by filling out a series of questionnaires administered over a period of eight months. These questionnaires included questions on COVID-19 related symptoms and risk factors, characterization of lifestyle and mental health changes, and determination of health care seeking and health care avoiding behavior during the pandemic. As of May 2021, the questionnaire had been sent out repeatedly for a total of six times with an overall response rate of 76%. This article provides an overview of the rationale, design, and implementation of this sub-study nested within the Rotterdam Study. Finally, initial results on participant characteristics and prevalence of COVID-19 in this community-dwelling population are shown.