Differences between Rural and Urban Practices in the Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Outcomes from the PRICOV-19 Study in 38 Countries

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Feb 19;20(4):3674. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20043674.

Abstract

This paper explores the differences between rural and urban practices in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing aspects such as management of patient flow, infection prevention and control, information processing, communication and collaboration. Using a cross-sectional design, data were collected through the online PRICOV-19 questionnaire sent to general practices in 38 countries. Rural practices in our sample were smaller than urban-based practices. They reported an above-average number of old and multimorbid patients and a below-average number of patients with a migrant background or financial problems. Rural practices were less likely to provide leaflets and information, but were more likely to have ceased using the waiting room or to have made structural changes to their waiting room and to have changed their prescribing practices in terms of patients attending the practices. They were less likely to perform video consultations or use electronic prescription methods. Our findings show the existence of certain issues that could impact patient safety in rural areas more than in urban areas due to the underlying differences in population profile and supports. These could be used to plan the organization of care for similar future pandemic situations.

Keywords: COVID-19; PRICOV-19; general practice; international comparison; primary health care; quality of care; rural; urban.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • COVID-19*
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Humans
  • Pandemics / prevention & control
  • Rural Population
  • Surveys and Questionnaires

Grants and funding

The PRICOV-19 study was mainly set up and implemented without external funding except for a small grant of the ‘European General Practice Research Network’ (EGPRN). Thus, the study relied almost entirely on the goodwill, contribution and funding of the partnering institutions. The APC for this paper was funded by the first author’s institution—The Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP) and by the King Baudouin Foundation—Belgium.