Skip to main content
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Mar 24;125(7):869–876. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.03.005

Beyond COVID-19: a cross-sectional study in Italy exploring the covid collateral impacts on healthcare services

Maria Rosaria Gualano a, Alessio Corradi a, Gianluca Voglino a,, Fabrizio Bert a,b, Roberta Siliquini a,b
PMCID: PMC7987502  PMID: 33840478

Abstract

With COVID-19, populations are facing unmet health needs due to fear of contagion, lockdown measures and overload of Healthcare services (HCS). The COCOS study aimed to investigate reduced healthcare access among Italian citizens, additionally looking for specific subgroups that will primarily need health services in the next future. A cross-sectional online survey was performed during the Italian lockdown between April and May 2020. Descriptive, univariable and multivariable (logistic regression models) analyses were performed: results are expressed as Odd Ratios and Adjusted Odd Ratios (ORs and AdjORs). Totally, 1,515 questionnaires were collected. Median age was 42 years (IQR 23), 65.6% were females. Around 21.8% declared to suffer from chronic diseases. About 32.4% faced a delay of a scheduled Medical Service (MS) by provider decision, 13.2% refused to access scheduled MS for the fear of contagion, and 6.5% avoided HCS even if having an acute onset issue. Alarmingly, 1.5% avoided Emergency Department when in need and 5.0% took medications without consulting any physician: patients suffering from chronic conditions resulted to be more prone to self-medication (AdjOR [95% CI]: 2.16 [1.16-4.02]). This study demonstrated that indirect effects of COVID-19 are significant. Large groups of population suffered delays and interruptions of medical services, and the most vulnerable were the most affected. Immediate efforts are needed to reduce the backlog that HCSs incurred in.

Keywords: Covid-19, Unmet health needs, Indirect effects, Delay of care

1. Introduction

It is possible that COVID-19 will be remembered as the worst health-related issue that affected 2020. In fact, governments defined the pandemic as the biggest challenge since Second World War. [1] However, there is a great probability that COVID-19 will be remembered also as the greatest calamity that affected the decade or worst. Even if the virus will be defeated with a widespread, effective vaccination program, its effects on health could exceed by far the already dramatic direct tolls.

In Europe, the 91.3% of deaths in 2017 came from non-communicable diseases (NCDs), with a leading position of cardiovascular diseases (36.4%) and neoplasms (27.6%). [2] Burden-wide, NCDs account for the 86.6% all of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), with the same two conditions in first places (18.4% and 18.6% respectively). [2], [3], [4] Furthermore, 74.1% of men and 79.7% of women report to suffer from NCDs: ~6.0% suffer from diabetes, ~18.0% report high blood pressure and 3.7% has a current cancer to fight. [5] Although prevalence of NCDs may decrease as an effect of COVID-19, the outbreak and measures undertaken to fight it will greatly compromise the already fragile condition of these patients. [6] As an example, Tapper and Asrani discussed at least three major culprits of worsen care in cirrhosis care: that is, halting of screening for varices, cancellation of therapeutic procedures, decreasing of deceased donor liver transplantations. [7] Even though of different magnitude, suspension of healthcare services is well studied in post-disaster recovery phases: Katrina and Rita hurricanes raised crude mortality rate of 40% in the month following the disaster, and this increment remained after a year (12%) and even after ten years (5.6%). [8]

Suspension of medical services must not be thought exclusively as delayed routine visits. Elective surgery was largely delayed as a mean to prevent hospital overcrowding and to maintain surgical rooms free and ready for emergencies. This comprehend surgery of tumors. [9] However, mid- and long-term effects of this strategy on population health are currently unquantified, and concerns are rising on when this quantification will forcibly occur. [10] Sud et al. modeled that a delay of six months in cancer surgery can mitigate 43% of life-years gained treating an equivalent number of COVID-19 patients. [11] It is worth noting that scientific community is already creating frameworks and algorithms to handle the backlog. [12], [13], [14]

Furthermore, patients are underusing the services still offered to them because of fear of contagion. This is true for elective procedures but remains true also for emergency departments visits. In Italy, a reduction ranging from 73% to 88% in pediatric ED visits was described in March with multiple delayed accesses reported, often with severe consequences. [15] In Austria, a reduction of 39.4% in admissions for acute coronary syndrome was reported, in a period ranging from the start to the end of March. The Authors went beyond arguing that number of deaths was greater than the toll taken by COVID-19 at that time. [16] Similarly, among patients with stroke in Hong Kong, a median increase of one hour in time taken to present to the ED was found, compared with pre-COVID-19 era. [17]

Italy was among the first countries in Europe issuing a national lockdown, the 10th of March. [18] In this perspective, this work aims to find what health needs were not provided in Italian population, the extension of the phenomenon, and if are there any specific subgroups of populations that will need tailored services in the near future.

2. Materials and methods

A cross-sectional study was performed between April 19th and May 3rd, 2020 through an online questionnaire. The questionnaires were distributed at a national level using the institutional account of the Department of Public Health Sciences (University of Torino). Participation was voluntary and without compensation. Informed consents were obtained. The Internal Review Board of the Department of Public Health Sciences (University of Torino) approved the protocol. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Exclusion criteria were being underage or had not been living in Italy during the lockdown. The present work is a part of the COCOS project and focus on the healthcare access of the subjects involved.

2.1. The questionnaire

The online questionnaire, written in Italian, was made by forty-nine items. A first section investigated socio-demographic characteristic of the sample. Additionally, information about health status was collected such as history of chronic diseases, health insurance coverage or previous COVID-19 test results. A second section assessed behaviors of respondents during the lockdown, such as the number of hours spent on internet, the sources of information used, having avoided physical activity because of the fear of injuries. Additionally, the level of trust in different professionals involved during the pandemic was assessed using a ten items scale with zero as “no trust at all” and ten as “complete trust”. The third section consisted of validated psychometric tests. Depressive symptoms presence was investigated through the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) and anxiety was measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2). [19,20] A score of three or above represents a higher probability of major depression and anxiety disorders, respectively, and thus this value was used to recode test results as binary outcomes. [19,20] Additionally, subjects were asked to report eventual sleep disturbances. Finally, the fourth section evaluated the Healthcare access (HCA). In particular, the present study aimed to assess the impact of the restrictive measures on the HCA. Therefore, although previous tools were used to assess different dimensions of HCA, the authors decided to use new items specifically included in the questionnaire. [21,22] In particular, the survey assessed if scheduled medical services were delayed, investigating if this delay was due to healthcare provider decision or due to subject decision for the fear of infection. Additionally, it was required to define the type of service that was delayed. Furthermore, it was investigated whether the respondents had an acute problem but avoided seeking help due to the fear of infection. If the answer was yes, subjects were required to specify what healthcare service they were avoiding. The last question assessed the taking of medications without the consultation with a physician and, in case of a positive answer, the reason was investigated. For each question, subjects were able to state if the scheduled medical service was programmed for themselves or for a family member. To perform statistical non-descriptive analysis, responses regarding medical services programmed for a family member were excluded.

Additionally, in-depth information on every question and on variables recoding can be found on previous paper published on peer-reviewed journal. [23]

2.2. Statistical analysis

Descriptive analyses were performed for all variables and for continuous variables normal distribution was assessed (Shapiro-Wilk test). Shapiro-Wilk test null hypothesis is that the population is normally distributed. A p-value lower than the defined alpha level means that there is evidence that the distribution is not normally distributed. In this case, parametric tests such as T tests cannot be used because their assumptions would not be met, and non-parametric statistical tests should be used. Differences between the groups defined by each outcome were investigated using chi-squared tests (when appropriate: Fisher's exact test) and Mann-Whitney U tests (when appropriate: Kruskal-Wallis H test). Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to assess the independent variables influence on each binary outcome. The results were expressed as Odd Ratios OR, 95% CI in univariable models, and as Adjusted Odd Ratios AdjOR, 95% CI in multivariable regression model, where more than a variable at a time was considered. The covariates included in final, multivariable models were selected based on results of univariable tests. All variables with a p-value ≤0.05 at univariable test were automatically entered in the final model, while covariates with p-values ≤0.25 at univariable tests were selected with a stepwise backward method. [24] Age and gender were entered as potential confounders.

SPSS (v25) was used and a two-tailed p-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Missing values were excluded.

3. Results

The collected questionnaires were 1556, but 41 were excluded because they met the exclusion criteria, and the final sample was made of 1515 questionnaires. Full descriptive data is shown in Table 1 . Interestingly 21.8% (N = 326) declared to suffer from chronic conditions and only 1.1% (N = 16) resulted positive to COVID-19 tests.

Table 1.

N = 1515
% or Median (IQR)
Age* 42 (23)
Gender Male 34.4
Female 65.6
Citizenship Italian 98.3
Other 1.7
Geographical Area North 75.5
Centre 13.7
South 10.8
Family Status Single/Divorced 38.9
Married/Cohabitant 61.1
Living alone^ 19.6
Education Level None 0.1
Elementary School 0.2
Middle School 4.8
High School 26.0
University 68.9
Employment Unemployed 6.2
Student 7.1
Employed (public sector) 24.9
Employed (private sector) 29.5
Self-employed 13.7
Entrepreneur 2.4
Retiree 14.8
Housewife 1.3
Activity during lockdown I do not work 20.7
My activity is not changed 15.3
Smart working 32.6
Layoff 6.5
Parental Leave 0.5
Paid Vacation 1.0
My activity is reduced 10.3
My activity is stopped 7.7
I lost my job 1.2
Other 4.2
Healthcare worker^ 20.4
Healthcare worker (relative)^ 35.1
Health Insurance^ 33.8
Chronic Conditions^ 21.8
Positive to COVID-19^ 1.1
Time spent on internet* Hours/day 9 (6)
Time spent on internet (Trend) Stable 21.6
Increased 75.1
Decreased 1.5
I do not know 1.8
Source of Information (TV)^ 70.0
Source of Information (Internet)^ 83.2
Source of Information (Newspaper)^ 52.8
Trust level* Doctors 8 (2)
Politicians 5 (3)
Experts 6 (2)
Journalists 5 (3)
Received chain letter/messages^ 85.5
Online Grocery^ 58.4
Times went out* Number/Week 3 (6)
Avoidance of activity (fear of injuries)^ 23.3
Avoidance of activity (peer pressure)^ 26.1
Do you wear a facemask going out? No, I do not think is useful 4.4
No, I was not able to find one 1.7
Yes, sometimes 17.7
Yes, always 71.1
I do not go out 5.0
Depression (PHQ-2)^ 24.7
Anxiety (GAD-2)^ 23.2
Trouble Sleeping^ 42.2
Delay of scheduled health service (decided by the provider) Respondent⁎⁎ 32.4
Respondent's family member⁎⁎ 25.6
No 49.0
Service Outpatient visit⁎⁎ 32.8
Dentist⁎⁎ 16.7
Screening⁎⁎ 7.9
Vaccination⁎⁎ 1.7
Diagnostic Test⁎⁎ 3.1
Surgical Procedures⁎⁎ 3.7
Others⁎⁎ 3.8
Avoidance of scheduled health services Respondent⁎⁎ 13.2
Respondent's family member⁎⁎ 8.8
No 78.5
Service Outpatient visit⁎⁎ 11.9
Dentist⁎⁎ 5.0
Screening⁎⁎ 3.6
Vaccination⁎⁎ 1.1
Diagnostic Test⁎⁎ 2.3
Surgical Procedures⁎⁎ 0.3
Others⁎⁎ 0.8
Avoidance of acute healthcare Respondent⁎⁎ 6.5
Respondent's family member⁎⁎ 3.4
No 90.4
Service General Practitioner⁎⁎ 4.6
Continuity Care Service⁎⁎ 0.3
Emergency Department⁎⁎ 1.5
Pharmacist⁎⁎ 0.3
Other Specialist⁎⁎ 2.7
Other professional⁎⁎ 1.5
Self-medication Respondent⁎⁎ 5.0
Respondent's family member⁎⁎ 1.1
No 94.1
Reason Not urgent 2.7
Trouble getting in contact with the doctor 1.6
Fear of going to the doctor 0.5
Not knowing correct point of contact 0.3
Other reasons 0.7

Figures are absolute frequencies or Median and Interquartile Range (IQR), when appropriate.

Continuous variable.

⁎⁎

: More than one answer was accepted.

^

: Yes/no dichotomous question. “Yes” frequency is reported.

One third of the sample had a scheduled personal medical service that was delayed and one fourth had a family member who was affected by a delayed medical service due to the provider decision. In particular, 6.8% (N = 103) of the sample had personal and family member scheduled medical services delayed due to provider decision. The services that were delayed were mainly outpatient visit, dentist visit or screening procedure.

The proportion of subjects who decided to not attend a scheduled medical service because of the fear of the infection was lower. In particular, 13.2% (N = 200) refused personally to attend the medical services while in the 8.8% (N = 134) of the cases a family member refused the service. In Table 1 the most frequent services not attended by the sample are reported. In fact, 6.5% (N = 97) of the subjects interviewed had an acute health problem but refused to seek help because of the fear of the infection. Finally, only 22 (1.5% of the sample) would have searched assistance from the Emergency Department, while 79 (4.6%) from the General Practitioner.

Regarding self-medication, 5% of the sample (N = 74) declared use of drugs without medical prescription. “I do not consider it an urgent matter now” was the reason most reported to justify self-medication (2.7%, N = 41).

As reported in Table 2 , to have had a personal medical service delayed due to the provider decision was significantly associated to socio-demographic variables, such as age (p < 0.001), gender (p = 0.001), education level (p = 0.034), occupation (p < 0.001), to health conditions, such as suffering from chronic conditions (p < 0.001) or a previous diagnosis of Covid-19 (p = 0.026), and to behaviors such as using television as source of information (p = 0.029), having received chain messages (p = 0.006), to be scared to go outside (p < 0.001) and to avoidance of physical activity because of the fear of injuries (p < 0.001).

Table 2.

Delay of scheduled health service (decided by the provider)
NoN = 1010 (67.6%) YesN = 484 (32.4%) p
Age* 40 (22) 47 (28) <0.001
Gender Male 73.2 26.8 0.001
Female 64.8 35.2
Citizenship Italian 67.7 32.3 0.415
Other 60.0 40.0
Geographical Area North 67.2 32.8 0.051
Centre 67.4 32.6
South 77.6 22.4
Family Status Single/Divorced 69.5 30.5 0.218
Married/Cohabitant 66.4 33.6
Living alone No 67.9 32.1 0.555
Yes 69.8 30.2
Education Level High school or lower 63.8 36.2 0.034
University 69.4 30.6
Occupation No 58.9 41.1 <0.001
Yes 71.2 28.8
Activity during lockdown No variation 64.6 35.4 0.073
Smart working 67.3 32.7
Guaranteed income 77.1 22.9
Activity Stopped 68.0 32.0
Healthcare worker No 67.2 32.8 0.137
Yes 71.7 28.3
Healthcare worker (relative) No 67.4 32.6 0.424
Yes 69.4 30.6
Health Insurance No 69.0 31.0 0.228
Yes 65.9 34.1
Chronic Conditions No 71.7 28.3 <0.001
Yes 54.1 45.9
Positive to COVID-19 No 67.6 32.4 0.026
Yes 93.8 6.3
Time spent on internet (Amount)* Hours/day 9 (6) 8.5 (5) 0.161
Time spent on internet (Trend) Stable 71.3 28.7 0.143
Increased 66.7 33.3
Decreased 54.5 45.5
I do not know 77.8 22.2
Source of Information (TV) No 71.7 28.3 0.029
Yes 65.9 34.1
Source of Information (Internet) No 63.0 37.0 0.092
Yes 68.5 31.5
Source of Information (Newspaper) No 69.9 30.1 0.075
Yes 65.6 34.4
Trust level* Doctors 9 (2) 8 (2) 0.084
Politicians 5 (3) 5 (3) 0.076
Experts 6 (2) 6 (3) 0.175
Journalists 5 (3) 5 (3) 0.277
Received chain letter/messages No 75.9 24.1 0.006
Yes 66.5 33.5
Online grocery No 70.1 29.9 0.105
Yes 66.1 33.9
Times went out* Number/Week 3 (6) 3 (5) 0.001
Fear of going out No 70.8 29.2 <0.001
Yes 60.8 39.2
Wearing facemask Other 70.7 29.3 0.115
Always 66.5 33.5
Activity avoidance (fear of injuries) No 70.1 29.9 <0.001
Yes 60.5 39.5
Activity avoidance (peer pressure) No 69.0 31.0 0.183
Yes 65.3 34.7
Depression (PHQ-2) No 68.4 31.6 0.250
Yes 65.1 34.9
Anxiety (GAD-2) No 67.3 32.7 0.779
Yes 68.1 31.9
Trouble Sleeping No 69.3 30.7 0.097
Yes 65.2 34.8

Figures are absolute frequencies or Median and Interquartile Range (IQR), when appropriate.

Continuous variable.

On the contrary, as reported in Table 3 , factors associated with medical services avoidance were different.

Table 3.

Avoidance of scheduled health services Avoidance of acute healthcare Self-medication
No Yes p No Yes p No Yes p
N = 1315 (86.8) N = 200 (13.2) N = 1397 (93.5) N = 97 (6.4) N = 1420 (93.7) N = 74 (4.9)
Age* 42 (23) 42 (25) 0.992 42 (23) 43.5 (23) 0.880 42 (24) 42 (16) 0.230
Gender Male 86.5 13.5 0.851 95.0 5.0 0.087 96.4 3.6 0.073
Female 86.8 13.2 92.7 7.3 94.3 5.7
Citizenship Italian 86.5 13.5 0.048 93.6 6.4 0.266 95.1 4.9 0.830
Other 100.0 0.0 88.0 12.0 96.0 4.0
Geographical Area North 86.8 13.2 0.785 93.5 6.5 0.614 95.3 4.7 0.175
Centre 85.5 14.5 92.0 8.0 96.0 4.0
South 85.1 14.9 94.8 5.2 91.8 8.2
Living alone No 87.4 12.6 0.185 93.2 6.8 0.805 95.4 4.6 0.144
Yes 84.5 15.5 93.6 6.4 93.2 6.8
Education Level High school or lower 88.4 11.6 0.246 93.5 6.5 0.959 96.5 3.5 0.080
University 86.2 13.8 93.4 6.6 94.4 5.6
Occupation No 88.6 11.4 0.185 91.8 8.2 0.089 97.3 2.7 0.010
Yes 86.0 14.0 94.2 5.8 94.1 5.9
Activity during lockdown No variation 87.0 13.0 0.474 93.6 6.4 0.992 96.4 3.6 0.137
Smart working 86.1 13.9 93.2 6.8 94.0 6.0
Guaranteed income 84.2 15.8 93.2 6.8 92.4 7.6
Activity Stopped 89.3 10.7 93.3 6.7 95.8 4.2
Healthcare worker No 87.4 12.6 0.150 92.8 7.2 0.076 95.2 4.8 0.531
Yes 84.2 15.8 97.7 4.3 94.3 5.7
Healthcare worker (relative) No 86.9 13.1 0.814 93.7 6.3 0.618 95.5 44.5 0.245
Yes 86.5 13.5 93.0 7.0 94.2 5.8
Health Insurance No 86.3 13.7 0.517 92.9 7.1 0.283 95.6 4.4 0.180
Yes 87.5 12.5 94.4 5.6 94.0 6.0
Chronic Conditions No 86.7 13.3 0.725 94.2 5.8 0.020 95.7 4.3 0.056
Yes 87.4 12.6 90.6 9.4 93.1 6.9
Time spent on internet (Trend) Stable 87.0 13.0 0.662 95.4 4.6 0.330 96.3 3.7 0.197
Increased 86.5 13.5 92.8 7.2 94.4 5.6
Decreased 95.5 4.5 95.5 4.5 100.0 0.0
I do not know 85.2 14.8 96.3 3.7 100.0 0.0
Source of Information (Internet) No 88.2 11.8 0.473 93.1 6.9 0.771 96.7 3.3 0.178
Yes 86.5 13.5 93.6 6.4 94.7 5.3
Trust level* Doctors 8.5 (2) 8 (6) 0.343 9 (2) 8 (2) 0.002 9 (2) 8 (2) 0.599
Politicians 5 (3) 5 (7) 0.049 5 (3) 4 (3) 0.211 5 (3) 5 (4) 0.836
Experts 6 (2) 6 (2) 0.137 6 (2) 6 (3) 0.537 6 (2) 6 (3) 0.965
Journalists 5 (3) 5 (3) 0.607 5 (3) 5 (3) 0.191 5 (3) 3.5 (5) 0.627
Received chain letter/messages No 87.4 12.6 0.751 95.8 4.2 0.127 96.7 3.3 0.202
Yes 86.6 13.4 92.9 7.1 94.6 5.4
Online grocery No 87.2 12.8 0.693 94.8 5.2 0.085 95.1 4.9 0.912
Yes 86.5 13.5 92.5 7.5 95.0 5.0
Fear of going out No 86.8 13.2 0.831 95.3 4.7 <0.001 95.8 4.2 0.032
Yes 87.2 12.8 89.1 10.9 93.2 6.8
Activity avoidance (fear of injuries) No 85.9 14.1 0.131 95.6 4.4 <0.001 94.9 5.1 0.725
Yes 89.1 10.9 86.6 13.4 95.3 4.7
Activity avoidance (peer pressure) No 85.9 14.1 0.132 94.9 5.1 <0.001 95.1 4.9 0.643
Yes 88.9 11.1 89.3 10.7 94.5 5.5
Depression (PHQ-2) No 86.3 13.7 0.578 94.8 5.2 <0.001 95.4 4.6 0.191
Yes 87.5 12.5 89.4 10.6 933.7 31.1
Anxiety (GAD-2) No 86.4 13.6 0.575 94.7 5.3 0.001 95.7 4.3 0.026
Yes 87.5 12.5 89.6 10.4 92.8 7.2
Trouble Sleeping No 87.4 12.6 0.366 95.9 4.1 <0.001 96.5 3.5 0.002
Yes 85.7 14.3 90.1 9.9 92.9 7.1

Figures are absolute frequencies or Median and Interquartile Range (IQR), when appropriate.

Continuous variable.

Non-Italian citizenship (p = 0.048) and trust level toward politicians (p = 0.049) were the only variables significantly associated with avoidance of scheduled of medical service. Similarly, a current occupation (p = 0.010) resulted to be associated with higher self-medication probability, as fear of going out (p = 0.032), anxiety (p = 0.026) and sleep disturbances (p = 0.002).

More variables resulted to be associated with avoidance of seeking help for an acute onset issue. In fact, suffering from chronic conditions (p = 0.020), trust level towards doctors (p = 0.002), fear of going out (p<0.001), depression (p<0.001), anxiety (p = 0.001), sleep disturbances (p<0.001) and activity avoidance either because of the fear of injuries (p<0.001) or peer pressure (p<0.001) were all associated with this specific outcome.

A multivariable logistic regression was modeled to estimate possible predictors of vulnerability to a medical service delay due to provider decision (Table 4 ).

Table 4.

Delay of scheduled health service decided by the provider Avoidance of scheduled health services Avoidance of acute healthcare Self-medication
AdjOR (95% CI) AdjOR (95% CI) AdjOR (95% CI) AdjOR (95% CI)
Age Years 1.0 (1.01-1.03)* 1.00 (0.99-1.01) 1.01 (1.00-1.03) 1.01 (0.98-1.03)
Gender Male Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Female 1.61 (1.19-2.17)* 1.01 (0.73-1.41) 1.25 (0.75-2.09) 1.39 (0.75-2.60)
Geographical Area North Ref. - - -
Centre 1.07 (0.71-1.59) - - -
South 0.58 (0.35-0.98)* - - -
Education Level High school or lower Ref. - - -
University 0.94 (0.67-1.28) - - -
Occupation^ 0.74 (0.53-1.02) - - 2.28 (1.08-4.80)*
Chronic Conditions^ 1.53 (1.07-2.19)* - 1.46 (0.86-1.45) 2.16 (1.16-4.02)*
Positive to COVID-19^ 0.23 (0.03-1.87) - - -
Time spent on internet - Trend Stable Ref. - - -
Increased 1.41 (0.99-1.99) - - -
Decreased 3.44 (1.03-11.53)* - - -
I do not know 0.49 (0.10-2.36) - - -
Source of Information TV^ 1.07 (0.79-1.46) - - -
Trust level Doctors - - 0.75 (0.64-0.89)* -
Politicians - 1.03 (0.95-1.11) - -
Received chain letter/messages^ 1.59 (1.04-2.43)* - - -
Online grocery^ - - 1.53 (0.94-2.49) -
Times went out Number/Week 0.97 (0.95-1.00)* - - -
Fear of going out^ 1.11 (0.81-1.52) - - 1.56 (0.89-2.74)
Wearing facemask Other - - - -
Always - - - -
Activity avoidance fear of injuries^ 1.24 (0.89-1.74) - 2.33 (1.43-3.80)* -
Activity avoidance peer pressure^ - - 1.50 (0.91-2.45) -
Depression PHQ-2^ - - 1.42 (0.83-2.43) -
Anxiety GAD-2^ - - 1.15 (0.65-2.03) 1.47 (0.79-2.74)
Trouble Sleeping^ - - 1.93 (1.17-3.17)* 1.41 (0.78-2.56)

p-value<0.05

^

Yes/no question. “Yes” answer’ AdjOR is reported, “No” answer is reference category.

Older people (AdjOR: 1.02), females (AdjOR: 1.61), patients suffering from chronic conditions (AdjOR: 1.53) and subjects who received chain messages (AdjOR: 1.59) presented an increased risk to have had a scheduled medical service delayed due to provider decision. On the other hand, subjects living in Southern Italy (AdjOR: 0.58) and people going out more frequently (AdjOR: 0.97) showed a lower risk of reporting this delay.

Similar models were used to evaluate predictors of the other variables assessed and the results are displayed in Table 4. None of the variables that were significantly associated with the avoidance of scheduled medical services because of the fear of infection at the univariable analysis were associated at the multivariable regression model too. In fact, no association was found for any variable. On the contrary, subjects with sleep disturbances (AdjOR: 1.93) or who avoided activity due to the fear of incurring in an injury (AdjOR: 2.33) were more at risk of avoiding acute care for the fear of infection, while patients with a higher trust level towards doctors (AdjOR: 0.75) had a lower risk of avoiding acute care when in need. Finally, subjects with an occupation (AdjOR: 2.28) and suffering from chronic conditions (AdjOR: 2.16) resulted to be more prone to self-medication.

4. Discussion

COVID-19 had a big impact on everyone's life, but probably some people were affected more than others. Exploring specific needs, it will be possible to tailor interventions such as public health information campaigns or increase individual departments budget.

One third of our sample faced a delay due to healthcare provider decision, a fourth declared a family member had the same problem. Most of these services were outpatient visits, and data is coherent with decision of governments to delay outpatients’ visits when possible. [25] Another quota reported delayed surgical procedures, as described by other Authors. [26] Another good one-tenth avoided a medical service for the fear of infection, which in most cases was an outpatient visit. Considering that hospitals had already suspended non urgent visits, patients were probably willingly delaying urgent ones. In fact, the 1.5% of the sample declared to have avoided seeking help even if affected by an acute problem, a concerning issue well described in various settings. [15,[27], [28], [29]] Finally, the 5% of the responders avoided consulting the physician before taking a medication, a well-known cause of medication error, which can cause negative consequences in some patients [30].

Seeking for associations between these outcomes and data collected via the questionnaire, is possible to hypothesize what (if any) subgroups of population suffered more frequently medical services delays. Looking at delays decided by the provider, a first association was found for age. Considering that another good association was found in patients with chronic conditions, it could be argued that old, chronically ill people are those who most need healthcare services on a scheduled basis, and as such are the most hit by postponement of non-urgent services. [25] Due to cross-sectional design of this study, the finding could also mean that chronic condition reported prevalence grew in people who experienced delays. Another good association was found with feminine gender, both in univariable and adjusted analyses. This evidence is of difficult interpretation: a hypothesis is that females more often than males have scheduled screening visits. Interestingly, a positive association was found between delayed medical services and both a decrement in time spent on internet and reception of chain letter/messages, but further studies are needed to deepen this finding.

Other considerations can be done looking at intentional avoidance of healthcare services data. In fact, no factors seem correlated to avoidance of scheduled visits. This seems to suggest that the fear of COVID-19 that kept users away from healthcare services is a widespread phenomenon, at least in this Italian sample. Similar results were found worldwide by other Authors in Austria, [16] Israel, [31] Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, [32] Iran. [33] In contrast, there is indeed association between avoidance of healthcare services in urgent need (even ED) and some characteristics. This suggests that, even if fear of contagion is generalized, there are subgroups of people who are even ready to avoid ED when in need. Not surprisingly, people who declared to have low trust level in doctors were more likely to avoid services when in urgent need. In addition, a strong association was found between this avoidance and avoidance of outdoor activities (due to fear of injuries) and sleeping disorders. It is likely that people who got to avoid medical services when in need were so scared that they avoided other activities too. Although it should be demonstrated by further studies focusing on the subject, it is possible that a quota of actual COVID-19 patients avoided ED until the last. Similar evidence was found during Ebola outbreaks not only in Africa but also in USA where risk of contagion was very low. [34,35] Indeed, avoidance of ED had negative effects on other afflictions, such as coronary syndromes or strokes. [16,17]

Finally, an association was found between self-medication and chronic conditions, suggesting that patients affected by chronic conditions had to comply with delayed scheduled services by self-treating themselves. Another positive association was found with employment status: in fact, employed people could have had more difficulties in reaching healthcare services due to time constraints, especially during a pandemic.

This work has several limitations. First, due to cross-sectional study design, is impossible to establish causality in found associations. Further, prospective studies will clarify these findings. Then, because the recruitment occurred over social networks, selection bias is very likely: people who have suffered outages were more probably driven to start and complete the questionnaire. On another hand, very old people and socially disadvantaged strata of population were probably underrepresented, despite being ones of the most vulnerable subgroups to delays and suspensions of healthcare services.

After the survey was performed, specific health policies were made to address these issues. In particular financial resources were used to increase health workforce and to permit additional healthcare services in order to reduce waiting list, particularly for patients affected by chronic conditions and in the prevention sector. [36] Nevertheless, a full implementation of similar policies was not possible due to the second wave. Therefore, further studies are required to investigate the impact of the pandemic on health services delay and to analyze the effects of the different policies each country.

5. Conclusions

This work is one of the firsts that attempt to estimate, although in a cross-sectional fashion, the “health debt” that we incurred because of COVID-19 pandemic, a debt that must sooner or later be paid back. While it is important to manage this problem as soon as possible, reducing the interests that are already building up, little can be done without knowledge of who are the most affected. In modern history, a globally, widespread, long suspension of routine healthcare services had never been seen. This work suggested that magnitude of the effects of this suspension could be huge with health (and economics) impacts still to be determined.

Declaration of Competing Interest

None.

References

  • 1.Huggler J. The Telegraph; 2020. Coronavirus is Germany's biggest challenge “since Second World War” Angela Merkel says. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/18/coronavirus-germanys-biggest-challenge-since-second-world-war/(accessed June 19, 2020) [Google Scholar]
  • 2.European Commission . EU Science Hub; 2017. EU burden from non-communicable diseases and key risk factors | EU Science Hub. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-gateway/societal-impacts/burden (accessed May 30, 2020) [Google Scholar]
  • 3.O'Donovan M.R., Gapp C., Stein C. Burden of disease studies in the WHO European Region-a mapping exercise. Eur J Public Health. 2018;28:773–778. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cky060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.James S.L., Abate D., Abate K.H., Abay S.M., Abbafati C., Abbasi N., et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet North Am Ed. 2018;392:1789–1858. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Huijts T., Stornes P., Eikemo T.A., Bambra C., Beckfield J., Wendt C., et al. Prevalence of physical and mental non-communicable diseases in Europe: findings from the European Social Survey (2014) special module on the social determinants of health. Eur J Public Health. 2017;27:8–13. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckw232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Palmer K., Monaco A., Kivipelto M., Onder G., Maggi S., Michel J.P., et al. The potential long-term impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on patients with non-communicable diseases in Europe: consequences for healthy ageing. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020;1 doi: 10.1007/s40520-020-01601-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tapper E.B., Asrani SK. The COVID-19 pandemic will have a long-lasting impact on the quality of cirrhosis care. J Hepatol. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.04.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Quast T., Andel R., Sadhu A.R. Long-term effects of disasters on seniors with diabetes: Evidence from hurricanes katrina and rita. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:2090–2097. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Thaler M., Khosravi I., Leithner A., Papagelopoulos P.J., Ruggieri P. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients suffering from musculoskeletal tumours. Int Orthop. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s00264-020-04636-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Søreide K., Hallet J., Matthews J.B., Schnitzbauer A.A., Line P.D., Lai P.B.S., et al. Immediate and long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delivery of surgical services. Br J Surg. 2020 doi: 10.1002/bjs.11670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sud A., Jones M., Broggio J., Loveday C., Torr B., Garrett A., et al. Collateral damage: the impact on outcomes from cancer surgery of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Oncol. 2020;13:19. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.05.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rubino F., Cohen R.V., Mingrone G., le Roux C.W., Mechanick J.I., Arterburn D.E., et al. Bariatric and metabolic surgery during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: DSS recommendations for management of surgical candidates and postoperative patients and prioritisation of access to surgery. Lancet Diab Endocrinol. 2020 doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30157-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Topf M.C., Shenson J.A., Holsinger F.C., Wald S.H., Cianfichi L.J., Rosenthal E.L., et al. Vol. 42. John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 2020. Framework for prioritizing head and neck surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic; pp. 1159–1167. (Head and Neck). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Iyengar K.P., Jain V.K., Vaish A., Vaishya R., Maini L., Lal H. Post COVID-19: planning strategies to resume orthopaedic surgery –challenges and considerations. J Clinical Orthop. Trauma. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.04.028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lazzerini M., Barbi E., Apicella A., Marchetti F., Cardinale F., Trobia G. Delayed access or provision of care in Italy resulting from fear of COVID-19. The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health 2020;4:e10–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30108-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 16.Metzler B., Siostrzonek P., Binder R.K., Bauer A., Reinstadler S.J. Decline of acute coronary syndrome admissions in Austria since the outbreak of COVID-19: the pandemic response causes cardiac collateral damage. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:1852–1853. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Teo K.-.C., Leung W.C.Y., Wong Y.-.K., Liu R.K.C., Chan A.H.Y., Choi O.M.Y., et al. Delays in stroke onset to hospital arrival time during COVID-19. Stroke. 2020 doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.120.030105. STROKEAHA120030105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Italian Government . GU; Italy: 2020. Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers, 9 march 2020. n.62 del 09-03-2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kroenke K., Spitzer R.L., Williams J.B.W., Monahan P.O., Löwe B. Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:317–325. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kroenke K., Spitzer R.L., Williams J.B.W. The patient health questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003;41:1284–1292. doi: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487.78664.3C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ferreira D.C., Marques R.C. Do quality and access to hospital services impact on their technical efficiency? Omega. 2019;86:218–236. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2018.07.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ferreira D.C., Nunes A.M., Marques RC. Doctors, nurses, and the optimal scale size in the Portuguese public hospitals. Health Policy. 2018;122:1093–1100. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gualano M.R., Lo Moro G., Voglino G., Bert F., Siliquini R. Effects of Covid-19 lockdown on mental health and sleep disturbances in Italy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:4779. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17134779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Scott A.J., Hosmer D.W., Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. Biometrics. 1991;47:1632. doi: 10.2307/2532419. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ministry of Health . Ministry of Health; Italy: 2020. Guidelines for reorganization of delayable planned activity during the COVID-19 emergency. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ralli M., Greco A., de Vincentiis M. The effects of the COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic outbreak on otolaryngology Activity in Italy. Ear, Nose Throat J. 2020 doi: 10.1177/0145561320923893. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hammad T.A., Parikh M., Tashtish N., Lowry C.M., Gorbey D., Forouzandeh F., et al. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions; 2020. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on ST-elevation myocardial infarction in a non-COVID-19 epicenter. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Colivicchi F., Di Fusco S.A., Magnanti M., Cipriani M., Imperoli G. The impact of the Coronavirus Disease-2019 pandemic and italian lockdown measures on clinical presentation and management of acute heart failure: COVID-19 pandemic and heart failure management. J Card Fail. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2020.05.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rosenbaum L. The untold toll — The pandemic's effects on patients without Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:2368–2371. doi: 10.1056/NEJMms2009984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mira J.J., Lorenzo S., Guilabert M., Navarro I., Pérez-Jover V. A systematic review of patient medication error on self-administering medication at home. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2015;14:815–838. doi: 10.1517/14740338.2015.1026326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Shinan-Altman S., Levkovich I., Tavori G. Healthcare utilization among breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 outbreak. Palliat Support Care. 2020;18:385–391. doi: 10.1017/S1478951520000516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ahmed S., Ajisola M., Azeem K., Bakibinga P., Chen Y.-.F., Choudhury N.N., et al. Impact of the societal response to COVID-19 on access to healthcare for non-COVID-19 health issues in slum communities of Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria and Pakistan: results of pre-COVID and COVID-19 lockdown stakeholder engagements. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5 doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nosratabadi M., Sarabi N., Masoudiyekta L. A case report of vaginal delivery at home due to fear of Covid-19. Iran J Psychiatry. 2020;15:366–369. doi: 10.18502/ijps.v15i4.4306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Espinola M., Shultz J.M., Espinel Z., Althouse B.M., Cooper J.L., Baingana F., et al. Fear-related behaviors in situations of mass threat. Disaster Health. 2016;3:102–111. doi: 10.1080/21665044.2016.1263141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Shultz J.M., Cooper J.L., Baingana F., Oquendo M.A., Espinel Z., Althouse B.M., et al. The role of fear-related behaviors in the 2013–2016 West Africa Ebola Virus Disease Outbreak. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2016;18:1–14. doi: 10.1007/s11920-016-0741-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Presidente della Repubblica. DECRETO-LEGGE, n. 104, 14 agosto 2020. n.d.

Articles from Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES