Background: Primary care has a crucial role in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic as the first point of patient care and gatekeeper to secondary care. Qualitative studies exploring the experiences of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly focused on secondary care. Aim: To understand the experiences of European PCPs working during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design and Setting: An exploratory qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews in primary care in England, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Greece and Sweden, between April and July 2020. Method: Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques. Results: Eighty interviews were conducted with PCPs. PCPs had to make their own decisions on how to rapidly transform services in relation to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 care. Despite being overwhelmed with guidance, they often lacked access to practical training. Consequently, PCPs turned to their colleagues for moral support and information to try to quickly adjust to new ways of working, including remote care, and deal with uncertainty. Conclusion: PCPs rapidly transformed primary care delivery despite a number of challenges. Representation of primary care at policy level and engagement with local primary care champions will facilitate easy and coordinated access to practical information on how to adapt services, ongoing training and access to appropriate mental health support services for PCPs. Preservation of autonomy and responsiveness of primary care are critical to preserve the ability for rapid transformation in any future crisis of care delivery.

BackgroundLow-resource settings are disproportionally burdened by chronic lung disease due to early childhood disadvantages and indoor/outdoor air pollution. However, data on the socioeconomic impact of respiratory diseases in these settings are largely lacking. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the chronic lung disease-related socioeconomic burden in diverse low-resource settings across the globe. To inform governmental and health policy, we focused on work productivity and activity impairment and its modifiable clinical and environmental risk factors.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional, observational FRESH AIR study in Uganda, Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan, and Greece. We assessed the chronic lung disease-related socioeconomic burden using validated questionnaires among spirometry-diagnosed COPD and/or asthma patients (total N = 1040). Predictors for a higher burden were studied using multivariable linear regression models including demographics (e.g. age, gender), health parameters (breathlessness, comorbidities), and risk factors for chronic lung disease (smoking, solid fuel use). We applied identical models per country, which we subsequently meta-analyzed.ResultsEmployed patients reported a median [IQR] overall work impairment due to chronic lung disease of 30% [1.8–51.7] and decreased productivity (presenteeism) of 20.0% [0.0–40.0]. Remarkably, work time missed (absenteeism) was 0.0% [0.0–16.7]. The total population reported 40.0% [20.0–60.0] impairment in daily activities. Breathlessness severity (MRC-scale) (B = 8.92, 95%CI = 7.47–10.36), smoking (B = 5.97, 95%CI = 1.73–10.22), and solid fuel use (B = 3.94, 95%CI = 0.56–7.31) were potentially modifiable risk factors for impairment.ConclusionsIn low-resource settings, chronic lung disease-related absenteeism is relatively low compared to the substantial presenteeism and activity impairment. Possibly, given the lack of social security systems, relatively few people take days off work at the expense of decreased productivity. Breathlessness (MRC-score), smoking, and solid fuel use are potentially modifiable predictors for higher impairment. Results warrant increased awareness, preventive actions and clinical management of lung diseases in low-resource settings from health policymakers and healthcare workers.

BackgroundRespiratory disease and, specifically, pneumonia, is the major cause of mortality and morbidity in young children. Diagnosis of both pneumonia and asthma in primary care rests principally on clinical signs, history taking, and bronchodilator responsiveness. This study aimed to describe clinical practices in diverse global primary care settings concerning differential diagnosis of respiratory disease in young children, especially between pneumonia and asthma.MethodsHealth professionals in Greece, Kyrgyzstan, Vietnam, and Uganda were observed during consultations with children aged 2–59 months, presenting with cough and/or difficult breathing. Data were analyzed descriptively and included consultation duration, practices, diagnoses and availability/use of medications and equipment. The study is part of the European Horizon 2020 FRESH AIR project.ResultsIn total, 771 consultations by 127 health professionals at 74 facilities in the four countries were observed. Consultations were shorter in Vietnam and Uganda (3 to 4 minutes) compared to Greece and Kyrgyzstan (15 to 20 minutes). History taking was most comprehensive in Greece. Clinical examination was more comprehensive in Vietnam and Kyrgyzstan and less in Uganda. Viral upper respiratory tract infections were the most common diagnoses (41.7% to 67%). Pneumonia was diagnosed frequently in Uganda (16.3% of children), and rarely in other countries (0.8% to 2.9%). Asthma diagnosis was rare (0% to 2.8%). Antibiotics were prescribed frequently in all countries (32% to 69%). Short acting β-agonist trials were seldom available and used during consultations in Kyrgyzstan (0%) and Uganda (1.8%), and often in Greece (38.9%) and Vietnam (12.6%).ConclusionsDuration and comprehensiveness of clinical consultations observed in this study seemed insufficient to guide respiratory diagnosis in young children. Appropriate treatment options may further not be available in certain studied settings. Actions aiming at educating and raising professional awareness, along with developing easy-to-use tools to support diagnosis and a general strengthening of health systems are important goals.

ObjectiveTo describe primary health care (consultation characteristics and management) for patients contacting their general practitioner (GP) with a respiratory tract infection (RTI) early on in the COVID-19 pandemic in contrasting European countries, with comparison to prepandemic findings.SettingPrimary care in 16 countries (79 practices), when no routine SARS-CoV-2 testing was generally available.Design and participantsBefore (n=4376) and early in the pandemic (n=3301), patients with RTI symptoms were registered in this prospective audit study.Outcome measuresConsultation characteristics (type of contact and use of PPE) and management characteristics (clinical assessments, diagnostic testing, prescribing, advice and referral) were registered. Differences in these characteristics between countries and between pandemic and prepandemic care are described.ResultsCare for patients with RTIs rapidly switched to telephone/video consultations (10% in Armenia, 91% in Denmark), and when consultations were face-to-face, GPs used PPE during 97% (95% CI 96% to 98%) of contacts. Laboratory testing for SARS-CoV-2 in primary care patients with RTIs was rapidly implemented in Denmark (59%) and Germany (31%), while overall testing for C reactive protein decreased. The proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics varied considerably between countries (3% in Belgium, 48% in UK) and was lower during the pandemic compared with the months before, except for Greece, Poland and UK. GPs provided frequent and varied COVID-related advice and more frequently scheduled a follow-up contact (50%, 95% CI 48% to 52%). GPs reported a slightly higher degree of confidence in the likely effectiveness of their management in face-to-face (73% (very) confident, 95% CI 71% to 76%) than in virtual consultations (69%, 95% CI 67% to 71%).ConclusionsDespite between-country variation in consultation characteristics, access to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing and medication prescribing, GPs reported a high degree of confidence in managing their patients with RTIs in the emerging pandemic. Insight in the highly variable pandemic responses, as measured in this multicountry audit, can aid in fine-tuning national action and in coordinating a pan-European response during future pandemic threats.

The COVID-19 pandemic puts health and care systems under pressure globally. This current paper highlights challenges arising in the care for older and vulnerable populations in this context and reflects upon possible perspectives for different systems making use of nested integrated care approaches adapted during the work of the EU-funded project VIGOUR (“Evidence based Guidance to Scale-up Integrated Care in Europe”, funded by the European Union’s Health Programme 2014–2020 under Grant Agreement Number 826640).

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an evidence-based, low-cost, non-medical treatment approach for patients with chronic respiratory diseases. This study aimed to start and assess the feasibility, acceptability and impact of a PR programme on health and quality of life of respiratory patients, for the first time in primary care in Crete, Greece and, particularly, in a low-resource rural setting. This was an implementation study with before–after outcome evaluation and qualitative interviews with patients and stakeholders. In a rural primary healthcare centre, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and/or asthma were recruited. The implementation strategy included adaptation of a PR programme previously developed in United Kingdom and Uganda and training of clinical staff in programme delivery. The intervention comprised of 6 weeks of exercise and education sessions, supervised by physiotherapists, nurse and general practitioner. Patient outcomes (Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Incremental Shuttle Walking Test (ISWT)) were analysed descriptively. Qualitative outcomes (feasibility, acceptability) were analysed using thematic content analysis. With minor adaptations to the original programme, 40 patients initiated (24 with COPD and 16 with asthma) and 31 completed PR (19 with COPD and 12 with asthma). Clinically important improvements in all outcomes were documented (mean differences (95% CIs) for CCQ: −0.53 (−0.81, −0.24), CAT: −5.93 (−8.27, −3.60), SGRQ: −23.00 (−29.42, −16.58), PHQ-9: −1.10 (−2.32, 0.12), ISWT: 87.39 (59.37, 115.40)). The direct PR benefits and the necessity of implementing similar initiatives in remote areas were highlighted. This study provided evidence about the multiple impacts of a PR programme, indicating that it could be both feasible and acceptable in low-resource, primary care settings.

Background Effectiveness of health programmes can be undermined when the implementation misaligns with local beliefs and behaviours. To design context-driven implementation strategies, we explored beliefs and behaviours regarding chronic respiratory disease (CRD) in diverse low-resource settings. MethodsThis observational mixed-method study was conducted in Africa (Uganda), Asia (Kyrgyzstan and Vietnam) and Europe (rural Greece and a Roma camp). We systematically mapped beliefs and behaviours using the SETTINGtool. Multiple qualitative methods among purposively selected community members, health-care professionals, and key informants were triangulated with a quantitative survey among a representative group of community members and health-care professionals. We used thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Findings We included qualitative data from 340 informants (77 interviews, 45 focus group discussions, 83 observations of community members' households and health-care professionals' consultations) and quantitative data from 1037 community members and 204 health-care professionals. We identified three key themes across the settings; namely, (1) perceived CRD identity (community members in all settings except the rural Greek strongly attributed long-lasting respiratory symptoms to infection, predominantly tuberculosis); (2) beliefs about causes (682 [65•8%] of 1037 community members strongly agreed that tobacco smoking causes symptoms, this number was 198 [19•1%] for household air pollution; typical perceived causes ranged from witchcraft [Uganda] to a hot-cold disbalance [Vietnam]); and (3) norms and social structures (eg, real men smoke [Kyrgyzstan and Vietnam]). Interpretation When designing context-driven implementation strategies for CRD-related interventions across these global settings, three consistent themes should be addressed, each with common and context-specific beliefs and behaviours. Context-driven strategies can reduce the risk of implementation failure, thereby optimising resource use to benefit health outcomes.

Background: Very Brief Advice on smoking (VBA) is an evidence-based intervention designed to increase quit attempts among patients who smoke. VBA has been widely disseminated in general practice settings in the United Kingdom, however its transferability to Southern European settings is not well established. This study sought to document the perspectives of Greek general practice patients in terms of the acceptability and satisfaction with receiving VBA from their general practitioner (GP) and its influence on patients' motivation to make a quit attempt. We also examine patient identified barriers and facilitators to acting on VBA. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 50 patients who reported current tobacco use recruited from five general practices in Crete, Greece. All patients received VBA from their GP and interviews were conducted immediately after the GP appointment. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data. Results: The majority of patients were satisfied with the VBA intervention. Approximately one quarter of patients reported they were motivated to make an attempt to quit smoking after receiving VBA from their GP. Patients identified a clear preference for VBA to be delivered in a supportive manner, which communicated genuine concern versus fear-based approaches. Patients with an existing smoking-related illness were more likely to report plans to act on their GP's VBA. Patients not ready to quit smoking indicated they would be likely to seek the support of their GP for future quit attempts as a result of VBA. Many patients reported low self-efficacy with quitting and apprehension about available quit smoking supports. Conclusions: VBA was positively received by the majority of smokers interviewed. Participating patients confirmed the motivational role of advice when delivered in a supportive and caring manner. Personal health status, beliefs about quit smoking supports, and low self-efficacy appear to influence patient's motivation to make an aided quit attempt.