Forgoing healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic in Geneva, Switzerland – A cross-sectional population-based study

  1. Lakshmi Krishna Menon
  2. Viviane Richard
  3. Carlos de Mestral
  4. Hélène Baysson
  5. Ania Wisniak
  6. Idris Guessous
  7. Silvia Stringhini

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.106987
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.01.21264411: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The Specchio-COVID19 study was approved by the Cantonal Research Ethics Commission of Geneva, Switzerland (CCER Project ID 2020-00881) and informed consent was obtained from all participants.
    Consent: The Specchio-COVID19 study was approved by the Cantonal Research Ethics Commission of Geneva, Switzerland (CCER Project ID 2020-00881) and informed consent was obtained from all participants.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationParticipants were randomly selected from this population at two periods.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The cross-sectional design is a limitation to our findings, as it prevented us from examining changes in forgoing healthcare patterns since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The baseline questionnaire also limited the scope of our analysis; we were unable to assess if forgone healthcare had any negative health impacts, nor make a distinction between renounced or delayed healthcare. Forgoing healthcare may have been underestimated in our study due to social desirability recall bias and because of the potential underrepresentation of underprivileged populations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.10.01.21264411v1 on medRxiv