Lack of coordination and medical disinformation in Canadian self-assessment tools for COVID-19
Olibris, B.; Attaran, A.
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 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Social contacts and transmission of COVID-19 in British Columbia, Canada 91%
- AI-Driven Early Detection of Severe Influenza in Jiangsu, China: A Deep Learning Model Validated Through The Design of Multi-Center Clinical Trials and Prospective Real-World Deployment 90%
- Is my cough a cold or covid? A qualitative study of COVID-19 symptom recognition and attitudes towards testing in the UK 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Risk factors, symptom reporting, healthcare-seeking behaviour and adherence to public health guidance: protocol for Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort study 92%
- COVID-19 International Border Surveillance Cohort Study at Toronto’s Pearson Airport 91%
- Development and validation of an algorithm to estimate the risk of severe complications of COVID-19 to prioritise vaccination 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Health care use up to 6 months after COVID-19 in 700.000 children and adolescents: a pre-post study 90%
- Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 over distances greater than two metres: a rapid systematic review 89%
- Factors associated with hospitalization and critical illness among 4,103 patients with COVID-19 disease in New York City 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Changing contact patterns in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada in response to public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic 92%
- Social contacts and other risk factors for respiratory infections among internally displaced people in Somaliland 89%
- Nationally Representative Social Contact Patterns among U.S. adults, August 2020-April 2021 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.