Background: eConsulta—that is, asynchronous, two-way teleconsultation in primary care—is one of the most important telemedicine developments in the Catalan public health system, a service that has been heavily boosted by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is vital to know the characteristics of its users in order to be able to meet their needs and understand the coverage of this service in a context where there is reduced accessibility to the health system. Objective: This study aims to analyze the profile of the citizens who use the eConsulta tool and the reasons for their use, as well as to gain an understanding of the elements that characterize their decision to use it while distinguishing between those who used it before and those who have used it since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A descriptive, observational study based on administrative data was performed. This study differentiates between the COVID-19 pandemic era and the period preceding it, considering the day the state of emergency was declared in Spain (ie, March 12, 2020) as the cut-off point. It also differentiates between eConsulta users who send messages and those who only receive them. Results: During the pandemic, the number of unique users of this teleconsultation service had almost tripled, with up to 33.10 visits per 1000 inhabitants per month reported in the first three months. For the two user profiles analyzed, most users since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak were predominantly female, systematically younger, more actively employed, and with less complex pathologies. Furthermore, eConsulta users received more messages proactively from the health professionals. There was also a relative decrease in the number of conversations initiated by higher-income urban users and an increase in conversations initiated by users in rural areas. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has helped to generalize the use of telemedicine as a tool to compensate, to some extent, for the decline in face-to-face visits, especially among younger citizens in Catalonia. Telemedicine has made it possible to maintain contact between citizens and the health care system in the context of maximum complexity.

Background: Telemedicine has become a necessary component of clinical practice for the purpose of providing safer patient care during lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It has been used to support the health care needs of patients with COVID-19 and routine primary care patients alike. However, this change has not been fully consolidated. Objective: The objective of this study was to analyze the determinants of health care professionals’ intention to use the eConsulta digital clinical consultation tool in the post–COVID-19 context. Methods: A literature review of the Technology Acceptance Model allowed us to construct a theoretical model and establish a set of hypotheses on the influence of a variety of different factors relating to health care professionals, as well as the institutions where they work, on their intention to use eConsulta. In order to confirm the proposed model, a mixed qualitative and quantitative methodology was used, and a questionnaire was designed to serve as the data collection instrument. The data were analyzed using univariate and bivariate analysis techniques. To confirm the theoretical model, exploratory factor analysis and binary logistic regression were applied. Results: The most important variables were related to perceived benefits (B=2.408) and the type of use that individuals habitually made of eConsulta (B=0.715). Environmental pressure (B=0.678), experience with technology (B=0.542), gender (B=0.639), and the degree to which eConsulta had been implemented (B=0.266) were other variables influencing the intention to use the tool in the post–COVID-19 context. When replicating the previous analysis according to professional group, experience with technology and gender in the physician group, and experience with tool use and the center where a professional worked in the nurse group, were found to be of considerable importance. Conclusions: The implementation and use of eConsulta had increased significantly as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the majority of health care professionals were satisfied with its use in practice and planned to incorporate it into their practices in the post–COVID-19 context. Perceived benefits and environmental pressure were determining factors in their attitude toward and intention to use eConsulta.

Introduction: The prevalence of people with complex chronic conditions is increasing. This population’s high social and health needs require person-centred integrated approaches to care.Methods: To collect data about experiences with the health system and identify priorities for care, we conducted 2 focus groups and 15 semi-structured interviews involving patients with multimorbidity and advanced conditions, caregivers, and representatives of patients’ associations. To design the programme, we combined this information with evidence-based recommendations from local healthcare and social care professionals.Results: Patients’ and caregivers’ main priorities were to ensure (a) comprehension of information provided by healthcare professionals; (b) coordination between patients, caregivers, and professionals; (c) access to social services; (d) support to caregivers in managing situations; (e) perceived support throughout the healthcare process; (f) home care, when available; and (d) a patient-centred approach. These dimensions were included in 37 of 63 clinical actions of the programme to cover the whole care trajectory: identifying high needs, defining, and providing care plans, managing crises, and providing transitional care and end-of-life care.Conclusion: We developed an evidence-based integrated care programme tailored to high-need patients combining input from patients, caregivers, and healthcare and social care professionals.

Background: The epidemiological situation generated by COVID-19 has highlighted the importance of applying non-pharmacological measures in the management of the epidemic. Mass screening of the asymptomatic general population has been established as a priority strategy by carrying out diagnostic tests to detect possible cases, isolate contacts, cut transmission chains and thus limit the spread of the virus. Objective: To evaluate the economic impact of mass COVID-19 screenings of an asymptomatic population during the first and second wave of the epidemic in Catalonia, Spain. Methodology: Cost-Benefit Analysis based on the estimated total costs of mass screening versus health gains and associated health costs avoided. Results: Excluding the value of monetized health, the Benefit-Cost ratio was estimated at 0.45, a low value that would seem to advise against mass screening policies. However, if monetized health is included, the ratio is close to 1.20, reversing the interpretation. In other words, the monetization of health is the critical element that tips the scales in favour of the desirability of screening. Results show that the interventions with the highest return are those that maximize the percentage of positives detected. Conclusion: Efficient management of resources for the policy of mass screening in asymptomatic populations can generate high social returns. The positivity rate critically determines its desirability. Likewise, precocity in the detection of cases will cut more transmissions in the chain of contagion and increase the economic return of these interventions. Maximizing the value of resources depends on screening strategies being accompanied by contact-tracing and specific in their focus, targeting, for example, high-risk subpopulations with the highest rate of expected positives.

Opportunistic cervical cancer screening can lead to suboptimal screening coverage. Coverage could be increased after a personalised invitation to the target population. We present a community randomized intervention study with three strategies aiming to increase screening coverage. The CRICERVA study is a community-based clinical trial to improve coverage of population-based screening in the Cerdanyola SAP area in Barcelona.A total of 32,858 women residing in the study area, aged 30 to 70 years were evaluated. A total of 15,965 women were identified as having no registration of a cervical cytology in the last 3.5 years within the Public Health data base system. Eligible women were assigned to one of four community randomized intervention groups (IGs): (1) (IG1 N = 4197) personalised invitation letter, (2) (IG2 N = 3601) personalised invitation letter + informative leaflet, (3) (IG3 N = 6088) personalised invitation letter + informative leaflet + personalised phone call and (4) (Control N = 2079) based on spontaneous demand of cervical cancer screening as officially recommended. To evaluate screening coverage, we used heterogeneity tests to compare impact of the interventions and mixed logistic regression models to assess the age effect. We refer a “rescue” visit as the screening visit resulting from the study invitation. Among the 13,886 women in the IGs, 2,862 were evaluated as having an adequate screening history after the initial contact; 4,263 were lost to follow-up and 5,341 were identified as having insufficient screening and thus being eligible for a rescue visit. All intervention strategies significantly increased participation to screening compared to the control group. Coverage after the intervention reached 84.1% while the control group reached 64.8%. The final impact of our study was an increase of 20% in the three IGs and of 9% in the control group (p<0.001). Within the intervention arms, age was an important determinant of rescue visits showing a statistical interaction with the coverage attained in the IGs. Within the intervention groups, final screening coverage was significantly higher in IG3 (84.4%) (p<0.001). However, the differences were more substantial in the age groups 50–59 and those 60+. The highest impact of the IG3 intervention was observed among women 60+ y.o with 32.0% of them being rescued for screening. The lowest impact of the interventions was in younger women. The study confirms that using individual contact methods and assigning a fixed screening date notably increases participation in screening. The response to the invitation is strongly dependent on age. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01373723