Back

Lack of coordination and medical disinformation in Canadian self-assessment tools for COVID-19

Olibris, B.; Attaran, A.

2020-04-18 health policy
10.1101/2020.04.14.20065631 medRxiv
Show abstract

As SARS-CoV-2 threatens to overwhelm health systems in Canada, it is imperative that provinces are able to plan and manage an effective and reduced risk response. For this response to be most effective, it must reflect an evidence-based, pan-Canadian response. We designed four different prototypical patients with a combination of common COVID-19 symptoms and opportunities for exposure who were made to self-assess using the 10 provincial COVID-19 self-assessment tools on 1 April. These tools were developed to allow individuals to self-triage, allowing health systems direct capacity to testing and care. We assessed the consistency of the self-assessment tools and of the guidance provided to the patients. While the tools generally screen in three areas, the scope of included COVID-19 associated symptoms as well as the opportunities for exposure, and therefore transmission, vary between provinces such that no two provinces screened in the same way. This was, in turn, reflected in the inconsistency in guidance found. A patient with cough who had travelled abroad or had close contact with a confirmed case within 14 days received the most consistent guidance, with remaining patients receiving guidance ranging from mandatory quarantine or self-isolation to being told they did not have COVID-19 symptoms, guidance at odds with medical evidence. Thus, there is not a single, evidence-based Canadian standard of care simply for self-assessment. Without consistency in public health guidance, Canadians cannot appropriately self-isolate to mitigate community transmission, nor can the necessary valid and reliable data be collected to inform critical epidemiological models that help guide pandemic response. If federal and provincial governments are unable to coordinate a response, Parliament must use its available jurisdiction to legislate a duty on both to follow national standards, so as to improve coordination on COVID-19 in coming months.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 3%
28.9%
2
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.8%
3
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.5%
4
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.8%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.2%
6
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.0%
50% of probability mass above
7
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.0%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.6%
9
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
10
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
11
European Journal of Epidemiology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
12
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
13
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 44%
1.5%
14
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
15
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
16
COVID
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
17
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
18
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
19
Journal of Hospital Infection
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
20
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
22
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
24
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
25
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
26
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
27
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
28
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
29
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%