@article{ParisiLehnerSchraderetal.2023,
  author    = {Parisi, Sandra and Lehner, Nina and Schrader, Hanna and Kierer, Leonard and Fleischer, Anna and Miljukov, Olga and Borgulya, Gabor and R{\"u}ter, Gernot and Viniol, Annika and G{\´a}gyor, Ildik{\´o}},
  title     = {Experiencing COVID-19, home isolation and primary health care: A mixed-methods study},
  series = {Frontiers in Public Health},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Public Health},
  issn      = {2296-2565},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpubh.2022.1023431},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-301498},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Objectives Although the vast majority of COVID-19 cases are treated in primary care, patients' experiences during home isolation have been little studied. This study aimed to explore the experiences of patients with acute COVID-19 and to identify challenges after the initial adaptation of the German health system to the pandemic (after first infection wave from February to June 2020). Methods A mixed-method convergent design was used to gain a holistic insight into patients experience. The study consisted of a cross-sectional survey, open survey answers and semi-structured telephone interviews. Descriptive analysis was performed on quantitative survey answers. Between group differences were calculated to explore changes after the first infection wave. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted on open survey answers and interviews. The results were then compared within a triangulation protocol. Results A total of 1100 participants from all German states were recruited by 145 general practitioners from August 2020 to April 2021, 42 additionally took part in qualitative interviews. Disease onset varied from February 2020 to April 2021. After the first infection wave, more participants were tested positive during the acute disease (88.8\%; 95.2\%; P < 0.001). Waiting times for tests (mean 4.5 days, SD 4.1; 2.7days, SD 2.6, P < 0.001) and test results (mean 2.4 days, SD 1.9; 1.8 days, SD 1.3, P < 0.001) decreased. Qualitative results indicated that the availability of repeated testing and antigen tests reduced insecurities, transmission and related guilt. Although personal consultations at general practices increased (6.8\%; 15.5\%, P < 0.001), telephone consultation remained the main mode of consultation (78.5\%) and video remained insignificant (1.9\%). The course of disease, the living situation and social surroundings during isolation, access to health care, personal resilience, spirituality and feelings of guilt and worries emerged as themes influencing the illness experience. Challenges were contact management and adequate provision of care during home isolation. A constant contact person within the health system helped against feelings of care deprivation, uncertainty and fear. Conclusions Our study highlights that home isolation of individuals with COVID-19 requires a holistic approach that considers all aspects of patient care and effective coordination between different care providers.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RohdeHimmelHofingeretal.2022,
  author    = {Rohde, J{\"o}rn and Himmel, Wolfgang and Hofinger, Clemens and L{\^a}m, Thi{\^e}n-Tr{\´i} and Schrader, Hanna and Wallstabe, Julia and Kurzai, Oliver and G{\´a}gyor, Ildik{\´o}},
  title     = {Diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in general practice - a prospective multicenter validation and implementation study},
  series = {BMC Primary Care},
  volume    = {23},
  journal   = {BMC Primary Care},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12875-022-01756-1},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-299659},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background PCR testing is considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis but its results are earliest available hours to days after testing. Rapid antigen tests represent a diagnostic tool enabling testing at the point of care. Rapid antigen tests have mostly been validated by the manufacturer or in controlled laboratory settings only. External validation at the point of care, particularly in general practice where the test is frequently used, is needed. Furthermore, it is unclear how well point of care tests are accepted by the practice staff. Methods In this prospective multicenter validation study in primary care, general practitioners included adult individuals presenting with symptoms suggesting COVID-19. Each patient was tested by the general practitioner, first with a nasopharyngeal swab for the point of care test (Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test) and then with a second swab for PCR testing. Using the RT-PCR result as a reference, we calculated specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, with their 95\% confidence intervals. General practitioners and medical assistants completed a survey to assess feasibility and usefulness of the point of care tests. Results In 40 practices in W{\"u}rzburg, Germany, 1518 patients were recruited between 12/2020 and 06/2021. The point of care test achieved a sensitivity of 78.3\% and a specificity of 99.5\% compared to RT-PCR. With a prevalence of 9.5\%, the positive predictive value was 93.9\% and the negative predictive value was 97.8\%. General practitioners rated the point of care test as a helpful tool to support diagnostics in patients with signs and symptoms suggestive for infection, particularly in situations where decision on further care is needed at short notice. Conclusion The point of care test used in this study showed a sensitivity below the manufacturer's specification (Sensitivity 96.25\%) in the practice but high values for specificity and high positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Although widely accepted in the practice, measures for further patient management require a sensitive interpretation of the point of care test results.},
  language  = {en}
}