↓ Skip to main content

The impact of COVID-19 on patient engagement with primary healthcare: lessons from the saudi primary care setting

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, September 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The impact of COVID-19 on patient engagement with primary healthcare: lessons from the saudi primary care setting
Published in
BMC Primary Care, September 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12875-023-02131-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alaa Alghamdi, Angus I. G. Ramsay, Ruth Abrams, Julia V. Bailey

Abstract

There have been significant achievements in controlling COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia (SA), but as in most healthcare settings worldwide, health services have been seriously disrupted. Also, with pandemic control measures such as lockdowns and curfews, and innovations such as digital health services, the delivery of primary healthcare (PHC) services has dramatically changed. However, little is known about patients' experiences of PHCs during the pandemic, their views on the pandemic-related interventions in SA, and patient views on impact on their medical care. Qualitative semi-structured online interviews were conducted for twenty-four Saudi patients across SA aged 18 and above who were diverse in terms of age, gender, education and health status. Data were analysed using thematic analysis yielding four major themes as an impact of COVID-19 on patient engagement with PHCs. The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound mixed impacts on patient engagement with PHC in SA. Fear of infection or of breaking lockdown rules has negatively impacted the utilisation of PHCs but positively changed patients' attitudes towards seeking medical help for self-limiting conditions. The pandemic has also negatively impacted routine preventive care at PHCs, especially for patients with long-term health conditions. The mandatory use of some digital health services in SA that existed pre-pandemic has provided patients with a perception of better care during the pandemic. Yet, a lack of awareness of optional digital health services, such as virtual clinics, hindered optimal use. Despite pandemic-related disruption of patient engagement with PHCs, the reduced waiting time in PHC centres and healthcare providers' communication and empathy during the pandemic contributed to patients' perceptions of better care compared to pre-pandemic. However, patients living outside the main cities in SA perceived care quality as less good during the pandemic compared to PHCs in the main cities in SA. The lessons learned from patients' experiences and views of PHCs during the pandemic were beneficial in promoting patient engagement with PHCs. The digital health services mandated in response to the pandemic have accelerated digital health innovation in SA and allowed patients to recognise the benefits of digital health. This has huge potential for increasing continuous patient engagement with PHCs. Yet, patients' experiences of digital health services during the pandemic are essential for informing appropriate implementation and utilisation of e-health services. Patients' positive experiences of PHCs during the pandemic, such as the reduction in waiting times and the perception of improved healthcare providers' professionalism, communication and empathy, can be built on to sustain engagement with PHC services. These findings might have significance for clinicians and policymakers to support patient engagement with PHCs, particularly in healthcare systems like SA that struggle with the overuse of emergency departments (EDs) for PHC-treatable conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Researcher 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Unknown 8 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Unknown 8 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2023.
All research outputs
#7,378,998
of 24,484,013 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#158
of 376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,195
of 219,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#6
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,484,013 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 219,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.