Changes in Access to Health Services during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures adopted are having a profound impact on a major goal of public healthcare systems: universal access to health services. The objective is to synthesize the available knowledge on access to health care for non-COVID-19 conditions and to identify knowledge gaps. A scoping review was conducted searching different databases (Medline, Google Scholar, etc.) for original articles published between December 2019 and September 2021. A total of 53 articles were selected and analyzed using the Aday and Andersen framework as a guide. Of these, 37 analyzed changes in levels of use of health services, 15 focused on the influencing factors and barriers to access, and 1 studied both aspects. Most focused on specific diseases and the early stages of the pandemic, based on a review of records. Analyses of the impact on primary care services’ use, unmet needs or inequalities in access were scarce. A generalized reduction in the use of health services was described. The most frequent access barrier described for non-COVID-19 conditions related to the services was a lack of resources, while barriers related to the population were predisposing (fear of contagion, stigma, or anticipating barriers) and enabling characteristics (worse socioeconomic status and an increase in technological barriers). In conclusion, our results show a general reduction in services’ use in the early stages of the pandemic, as well as new barriers to access and the exacerbation of existing ones. In view of these results, more studies are required on the subsequent stages of the pandemic, to shed more light on the factors that have influenced access and the pandemic’s impact on equity of access.

1. Introduction

The pandemic due to coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), a novel virus initially reported in December 2019 [1], was declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 11 March 2020. It has had an adverse effect worldwide on many different spheres of society, including the economy and public health. The current COVID-19 pandemic and the diverse strategies that have been adopted to tackle it are forcing changes in access to health services for other conditions, potentially producing an impact on the health of the population above and beyond that caused by COVID-19 itself [2,3,4,5,6].

In this regard, some strategies taken to combat soaring COVID-19 infection rates may have negatively affected access to health services for other conditions. Firstly, at the health services level, one of the most influential measures was the classification of services as essential or non-essential, following WHO guidelines, which allowed resources to be redirected to the pandemic response. However, this has also caused cancellations or delays in elective and non-urgent procedures [3,5,6,7], despite many countries implementing strategies to mitigate the impact of these disruptions (e.g., online healthcare visits) [4,5], Another significant measure was social distancing to reduce interaction between people, including nationwide partial or complete lockdowns, schools and non-essential business closures, and instructions to stay at home, which in some cases has erected a barrier in terms of mobility to entry the health services [8].

Another indirect effect of the pandemic, the economic crisis stemming from the substantial curtailment of economic activity, and the ensuing rise in unemployment and loss of household income, have aggravated associated access barriers (loss of health coverage, difficulties in making copayments or obtaining transport to services), thereby accentuating existing inequalities in access, as studies on previous economic crises have shown [9]. Although it is necessary to evaluate which population groups have been particularly affected in terms of access to care and how the determining factors interact with each other, there are some signs—including early evidence and experiences from previous crises—to indicate that vulnerable population groups (populations with low socioeconomic status, the elderly, chronic patients or those with severe conditions, migrants from low-income countries) suffer a greater impact [9,10,11,12,13,14].

In short, as in other epidemics and previous outbreaks, the health repercussions of the current pandemic are not confined solely to COVID-19 infection and mortality. They also include indirect negative effects on healthcare access and on the quality of curative and preventive care provided for other conditions, and the exacerbation of difficulties and barriers related to socioeconomic factors [15,16,17]. The scientific evidence accumulated from previous experiences, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS (2002–2003), Middle East respiratory syndrome or MERS (2012), Ebola (2014–2016; 2018–present), and the Zika virus (2015–2016) [18,19,20], shows a decrease in the utilization of health services (e.g. outpatient care, hospital admissions, elective surgeries [20,21,22,23]) that is attributed to changes made to the health services in response to public health emergencies, as well as to fear of contagion among the population [21,24]. This may in turn have had an impact on increasing the burden of disease and mortality in the months following an epidemic outbreak [6,20,25,26,27].

While a plethora of scientific papers have been published on COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, studies on its impact on access to health services have not been so plentiful. A few literature reviews have been found that summarize changes in health services due to the pandemic, focusing mainly on the adoption of telemedicine [28,29,30,31,32] and the impact of the pandemic on different aspects, among others, the use of certain specific services, such as maternal and child health care [33], child vaccination [34], or chronic diseases [35,36], in the initial stages of the pandemic. Although we are still at the pandemic management stage, a synthesis of the scientific evidence accumulated to date on the impact on access to health care in different contexts, in addition to detailed monitoring of the performance of services, may help decision makers to make healthcare systems more resilient in current and future emergencies and protect public health and access to health care.

Access to care involves many highly interdependent factors and stakeholders at play [37]. This study takes as its framework of reference one of the most frequently used models for the analysis of access to health services [38], that of Aday and Andersen [39]. This model distinguishes between realized access (effective utilization of the services) and potential access (determinants of access), differentiating between factors related to the services and to the population. The realized access analysis takes into account the type, place, motive of the visit (preventive or curative), and care outcomes, while potential access analysis takes into account the characteristics of the services (availability of resources and organization) and those of the population (predisposing factors: sociodemographic factors, beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge of the health system; enabling factors: income and type of insurance; health needs). Health policies, programs, or interventions can in turn affect access barriers related to the health services or changing (mutable) characteristics of the population [39,40]. Aday and Andersen’s framework is more comprehensive and exhaustive than other analytical models [41,42,43], which focus either on the entry to health services or on the characteristics of services and how they adjust to the characteristics of the population. Thus, it offers an appropriate approach for identifying existing knowledge gaps in the literature on access and to analyzing different types of barriers and factors that influence the use of health services.

The aim of this article is to synthesize the knowledge accrued from the onset of the pandemic in March 2020 through to September 2021 on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to health services (including primary care, outpatient secondary care, and inpatient care) for non-COVID-related conditions, and to identify knowledge gaps on these subjects.

2. Materials and Methods

A scoping review of the scientific literature [44] was carried out, following the PRISMA guide [45], to identify original articles on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to health services for non-COVID-related conditions.

In our bibliographic search, several digital databases were consulted to minimize the risk of overlooking any relevant studies: Medline, Google Scholar, SCiELO, and Web of Science. The search was performed over two separate periods: 22 January 2021–31 March 2021 and 22 September 2021–10 October 2021. In the Medline database, using a thesaurus, MeSH terms were employed for: (a) COVID-19: “Coronavirus Infections”, “Coronavirus”, “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”; (b) access to health services: “Health services availability”, “Health services needs and demand”, “Healthcare disparities”, “Needs assessment, healthcare”, “Health policy”, “Equipment and Supplies Utilization”, “Facilities and Services Utilization” (see Appendix A for more detail). In the other databases free text terms were used: (a) COVID-19: “coronavirus disease”, “COVID-19”; (b) access to health services: “health services accessibility”, “accessibility”, “accessing”, “access”, “utilization”, “delivery of health care”, “healthcare services”, among others. Word groups were combined using Boolean operators “AND” and “OR” in order to identify the literature in the databases consulted and select those studies referring to the impact of COVID-19 on access to health services. The search was complemented with a manual review of references cited within the selected articles.

We selected original articles published in Spanish or English from December 2019 to September 2021—with no filters for geographical area or motive for access (apart from being unrelated to COVID-19)—that used qualitative and/or quantitative methods and analyzed or described changes in access to health services in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The initial selection of studies to review was performed through title and abstract screening. Where there was any doubt about whether to include a study, this was discussed with another researcher in the team.

Following Aday and Andersen’s framework [39,40], the selected studies were classified into two groups: those that analyzed utilization of services (realized access) and those that explored factors that influence access (potential access). Any studies on realized access that did not use medical records, administrative/institutional databases, or patient surveys as their data source were excluded. A data extraction protocol was produced to include information related to methodological aspects (methods, period of analysis, study area, population, sample, type of health service) and study results (according to the variables or dimensions of analysis). This information was extracted from the articles and presented in tables, grouped according to type of access, and ordered by type of health service. The results were summarized according to the analytical framework, which was also used to identify any gaps in knowledge related to the aspects studied.

3. Results

From the search results, 242 articles were identified for title and abstract screening, and 95 for full-text review. A total of 53 articles met the inclusion criteria for analysis (Figure 1).

Of the 53 articles selected, 37 analyzed changes in realized access applying quantitative methods [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82], through the analysis of medical records (Table 1), 8 analyzed changes in potential access [83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90] via surveys of different population groups, except for one that did the same via analysis of medical records [90] (Table 2), 7 used qualitative methods to analyze the impact on potential access [91,92,93,94,95,96,97] (Table 3), and, finally, 1 study analyzed changes in both realized and potential access [98] using mixed methods (analysis of medical records and semi-structured interviews). Only six of the studies that explored changes in potential access included professionals from the health centers analyzed as a study population, [87,89,92,93,97,98], while the rest focused on patients or the general population.

With regard to the type of service, of the studies on realized access, 5 focused on health services in general [46,47,48,49,50]; 12 on emergencies [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62] (of which 5 were related to pediatric emergencies [56,57,58,60,61]); 15 on secondary care (SC) (outpatient visits, hospital admissions, etc., for nephrology [63], oncology [64,65], pediatrics [66], psychiatry [67,68], rehabilitation [69], respiratory diseases [70], sexual and reproductive health (SRH) [71,73,74,75], and traumatology [78,79]); two on primary care (PC) [80,81]; one on preventive services [82]. Of the studies on potential access, 1 focused on health services in general [91], 13 on SC (endocrinology [83], rare diseases [86], pediatrics [84], psychiatry [85], SRH [87,88,93,94,95], tuberculosis [89,96] and urology [90]); and 2 on PC [92,97]. The study that analyzed changes in both realized and potential access focused on SC relating to SRH [98].

In terms of geographical area, 19 studies were conducted in European countries [47,51,53,55,57,62,64,67,68,69,70,75,79,83,84,88,90,92,95], 9 in North American countries [49,58,59,77,78,80,82,85,86], 9 in Sub-Saharan Africa [46,48,71,72,76,87,93,94,98], 3 in Latin America [60,91,96], 5 in the East Asia–Pacific region [50,56,61,66,81], 3 in South Asia [63,65,74], 2 in the North Africa–Middle East region [52], and, lastly, 3 studies covered various regions [54,89,97].

With regard to the period of analysis, 38 of the selected studies were conducted over the first months of the pandemic (February to June 2020) [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,57,58,59,60,62,65,66,67,68,69,70,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,82,84,86,88,90,92,93,98]; 4 during the second stage of the pandemic (June to September 2020) [85,89,91,96]; 1 at a later stage (September to November 2020) [94]; finally, 8 analyzed the whole period (February to December 2020) [56,61,63,64,71,81,83,87]. No studies were found that analyzed periods after December 2020. All studies that analyzed realized access presented their results in comparison with a previous period: 32 of the first-stage studies compared the changes to pre-pandemic periods of reference [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,57,58,59,60,62,65,66,67,68,69,70,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,82,98], as did 6 of those that analyzed the whole period [56,61,63,64,71,83]. One study did not specify the exact period of 2020 analyzed [95].

Below is a summary of results found regarding changes in realized access and potential access, following the Aday and Andersen theoretical framework [39,40].

3.1. Changes in the Utilization of Health Services and Influencing Factors

Of the 38 studies that analyzed changes in realized access [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,98], 33 indicated a statistically significant descent in the use of services and only one reported an increase [78], and 4 descriptive studies also found a reduction in the use of services [47,61,63,65] (Table 1). After the first few months of the pandemic, some studies described an increase in the utilization, without reaching levels previous to the COVID-19 pandemic [48,61,63,71,72,82]. However, among the studies that extended their analysis to the end of 2020, there are reports of new drops in the utilization of services, coinciding with the onset of new waves of COVID-19 [61,63,71].

By type of service analyzed, studies focusing on the health services in general [46,47,49,50] described an overall drop in use, which varied in terms of magnitude. Among those that analyzed changes in emergency care [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,66,77], it was reported that, although the volume of consultations fell, there was an increase in the number of cases with additional complications [53,58,66,74,77] and cases requiring admission to hospital [51,55,57,59,60,67,70]. Likewise, the studies on changes in SC services also reported a reduction in the use of services, while in some cases detecting an increase in the proportion of visits or hospital admissions in concrete healthcare areas (e.g., severe mental health cases [47] or trauma injuries [56,58,78]). With respect to PC, both studies described a drop in the number of in-person visits and an increase in remote care consultations (via various mechanisms, such as consultation by telephone or videocall) [66,80]. Lastly, the study that analyzed changes in the use of preventive services [82], along with others that also assessed procedures classified as elective [49,53,63,64,77], reported a drop in use but with less pronounced changes in urgent cases [57,62,82].

In the studies that analyzed influencing factors in the use of services in the context of the pandemic, the probability of lower utilization levels was associated with different factors. With regard to predisposing characteristics of the population, women [56,79] and ethnic minorities [49,74] were less likely to access health services, with inconsistent results regarding the elderly [52,79]. As for individual enabling characteristics, the likelihood of a lower use of services was associated with people with a low income and limited healthcare coverage [49,74], and for those enabling characteristics related to the type of area, a higher incidence of COVID-19 [50]. In terms of need, the probability of using health services was lower among patients who lacked a previous diagnosis [82], had less severe conditions (without complications or adverse outcomes) [67], and did not require hospitalization [52,57,67].

3.2. Potential Access: Barriers Related to Characteristics of the Services and Population

The 16 studies that analyzed potential access [83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98] described changes in the factors that influenced access before the COVID-19 pandemic and the emergence of new barriers, in terms of both the characteristics of the services and those of the population (Table 2 and Table 3).

Twelve studies described changes related to characteristics of the services [83,85,86,87,88,89,90,92,93,95,97,98]. The most significant of these was a reported decrease in available resources, both in terms of materials and medical supplies [83,86,89,93,97], and of staff to care for non-COVID patients [83,85,88,89,92,95], which in certain cases forced some health centers to close [93,97]. Two studies pointed out increases in waiting times [90,98] and one a rise in the cost of services [97].

Fourteen studies identified barriers related to population characteristics [83,84,85,86,87,88,89,91,93,94,95,96,97,98]. Among the predisposing factors identified, fear of contagion was one of the main reasons for not going to the health services [83,84,85,86,88,89,94,95,96,97,98], as well as the stigma that receiving a COVID-19 diagnosis would create [89,94,97]. Other factors found included people misinterpreting government recommendations to avoid going to the health services [84], perceiving that the services were of poor quality [94], or believing they would have difficulties in gaining access [85,86,91,93] during the pandemic. With respect to enabling factors, authors highlighted the worsening socioeconomic situation of the population [87,89,91,93,94,96,97], a lack of support networks [93,94], and an increase in technological barriers [85,88] as some of the main factors that hindered access to the health services. Lastly, they also underlined tendencies to play down the risk of health complications and the perceived need for medical attention [94,98] as barriers that had the effect of reducing the use of services and delaying the decision to seek care during the pandemic.

4. Discussion

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been felt worldwide in many different spheres of society, but especially in access to health services for unrelated conditions. There is now a pressing need to evaluate the changes that have arisen in this regard, and their implications for equity of access and the resilience of national health systems to future pandemics. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first scoping review to offer a general overview of the subject, taking in the current evidence and highlighting the areas that will require further research in future studies.

Most of the studies included in the analysis describe a lower level of health services’ utilization and changes in potential access, as preexisting barriers have intensified and new ones have arisen. However, while investigations into the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic are still ongoing, the results of this review show that the studies conducted to date are limited in terms of scope and methodology, and that they are mainly centered on analyzing the impact on the use of services for specific diseases or population groups during the first stages of the pandemic, with a particular focus on secondary care.

Studies on the use of health services in general are very scarce, as are those on access to primary care, which in many countries has been the most overwhelmed care level due to having to take on more pandemic-related care duties (vaccination, case tracking, etc.). Likewise, there is a considerable lack of evidence so far on how changes have taken place over the course of the different waves of COVID-19, and according to geographical context. Although some studies with longer timeframes—to the end of 2020—have already described new drops in health services’ activity following brief periods of recovery [61,63,71], further evidence is required to confirm this trend. Moreover, we have yet to look into how the pandemic has affected unmet care needs, as some studies showed that one of the most commonly reported impact was that patients delayed seeking care due to factors such as fear of contagion, disinformation, etc. [83,84,85,86,88,89,94,95,97,98].

It is important to bear in mind that access to care involves multiple interdependent factors and numerous actors. However, the results of this review show that, so far, there are almost no published studies with a wide scope using mixed methods, and that the qualitative studies available to date are still limited in both number and perspective. In regard to the latter, few studies include, in addition to that of users, other viewpoints such as that of the health professionals or managers involved in the process of taking measures or adopting practices that influenced access to care. Furthermore, the population groups selected for study were generally sufferers of a specific condition or of vulnerable status. The number of qualitative studies is probably limited due to the complexity of their development in the pandemic context, in terms of time, resources, and restrictions imposed by the mitigation measures. Approaches that combine multiple sources of evidence and different perspectives are needed to shed more light on the factors and actors that have influenced access.

With regard to our main findings on the reduction in the use of services, this may be related to health systems prioritizing their response to the public health emergency, which differed according to context [4,25,99,100]. Initial measures were generally centered on containing the spread of COVID-19 and providing the health services with the resources needed to meet the soaring demand for medical attention, which led to the classification of some services and procedures as non-essential, and a consequent reduction in the resources allocated to cover those health needs [3,4,7,8]. There is a lack of evidence on how the measures were modified and adapted according to context as the pandemic progressed, and the patterns of utilization that they generated, although some studies have already revealed changes in use with recoveries and relapses, in the more advanced stages of the pandemic [61,63,71].

Going into more detail, the reductions in access to services described appear to have brought with them an increase in medical complications and emergencies, especially in elective procedures [48,49,52,53,58,59,67,71,74,77,101], and/or care delays (time passed between onset of symptoms and intervention) [53,98], although it is generally not specified whether the delays were due to patients putting off seeking medical attention or rather to an increase in barriers to access the services. Some studies also observed higher mortality rates [52,70,74,76] and burden of disease [62]. However, while emergency care was one of the greatest causes for concern [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62], according to our results the downturns recorded for this type of service appear to be less pronounced or of lower impact than those reported in other fields.

In this regard, some studies highlight the difficulties involved in maintaining normal levels of activity in certain services, even in some classed as essential, such as maternal health, oncology, or mental health [71,76,85,89,93,94,97,98]. The impact appears to have been felt worldwide but especially in middle- and low-income countries, a point that has also been stressed in various opinion articles [101,102,103,104,105,106,107]. Differences between health systems, and between geographical contexts, may both have acted as determining factors in the changes seen. Sexual and reproductive health services analyzed in African and South Asian countries, for example, have seen a significant downturn in access, not only to maternal and child health services but also other non-essential areas of health care (family planning, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.) [71,74,76,93,98], despite the warnings given in various reports and opinion articles based on previous epidemic experience [2,26,101,108] of the risk this poses in terms of burden of disease and mortality [2,25,26,103,104,105,106,109,110,111,112,113,114]. Another example can be found in the lack of care for patients at risk of a cancer diagnosis due to delays in screening and diagnostic programs caused by certain procedures being classified as elective [64,65,82], which could also lead to an increase in the burden of disease and mortality due to the late detection of new cancer cases, as several studies pointed out [35,115,116,117,118]. As regards mental health, various studies mention anxiety and other disorders related to fear of contagion and the uncertainty that the pandemic generated in its first few months [35,55,77,83,84,85,86,88,91,94,95,96], as well as difficulties in access to mental health services [68,85,97] and an increase in acute cases of severe disorders [67]. These issues may have caused the burden of disease to increase, which could influence service utilization patterns in the years to follow, an aspect that was observed previously with the SARS epidemic in 2003 [119] and that should be taken into consideration in future studies on the impact of COVID-19.

The few studies that analyze the influencing factors on the lower utilization of services mainly highlight a greater downturn in use among low-income users, those with limited healthcare coverage, and ethnic minorities [49,74], as well as the female population [56,79], all of which signals greater inequalities with regard to more vulnerable populations.

As regards the changes in potential access detected in this review, the results indicate both the exacerbation of existing barriers, related above all to structural difficulties and situations of vulnerability, and the creation of new ones. In terms of existing barriers accentuated by the pandemic, some studies reported a shortage of resources in the services to meet all the incoming healthcare requests [83,85,86,88,89,92,93,95,97,98], which varied according to service and geographical context. One of the most serious problems was the lack of or alterations to the distribution of materials and medical supplies in low-income countries [83,87,89,93,94,97], an aspect corroborated in other publications, both reports and opinion articles [4,34,104,120,121,122]. The lack of materials and medical supplies may have contributed to increasing negative perceptions of the quality of the health services, especially in disadvantaged settings or situations with structural difficulties, another barrier to access found by some studies [93,94,97]. Lastly, several studies in this review [83,85,87,89,91,93,97] and some reports [12,123] focusing on vulnerable population groups (such as migrants or refugees, sex workers, people at a severe socioeconomic disadvantage) highlight the worsening economic situation and the intensification of other barriers (legal, information-related, or discriminatory), as has also occurred in previous epidemics [19]. All this points to situations in which the ability of these groups to access the health services and receive care may have diminished yet further.

In addition, new barriers may have been created as a result of adopting alternatives to face-to-face visits (online consultation, telephone, video call, telemedicine, etc.) and changes in attitudes and beliefs developed as a result of the pandemic. In this regard, the use of online consultation has grown as a way to mitigate difficulties in access [4], but not in the same way across all contexts [3,124]. Several articles included in the review described inequalities in access, reporting access problems related to digital literacy (lack of understanding of digital devices) or a lack of material resources (Internet connection, mobile devices) [49,85,89], a point also highlighted in other publications [125,126], alongside the perception that the care received in virtual consultation is impersonal [88]. These results are in keeping with numerous publications that have focused on the changes from face-to-face consultations to remote care and user satisfaction with the latter [29,80,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136]. However, most studies are centered mainly on high-income countries, thus, further evidence in different contexts is required on the impact of remote care on access to the health services.

Likewise, one of the individual characteristics that has been most influential in terms of new barriers created by the pandemic is fear of contagion [83,84,85,86,88,89,94,95,97], an aspect that has been discussed in many publications, including opinion articles [113,137,138,139,140,141,142], and also played a highly significant role in previous epidemics as a factor causing problems or delays in seeking medical care [2,21,24,26,72,76,101,108,143,144]. Other factors reported include the stigma associated with seeking care [84,89,93,94,97], also described in other publications [109,145], and users playing down the need for medical treatment [84,94,98] and perceiving a lack of response on the part of the health services [85,88].

While it is true that various studies have identified both new barriers and the exacerbation of existing ones, the behavior of individuals in this type of public health emergency requires more in-depth analysis in order to steer the design of interventions to help counter these barriers, such as public health information campaigns or specific measures for vulnerable populations.

On a final note, this review has several limitations. In the first place the nature of the studies covered varies greatly, in terms of methodology (ways of measuring use of services, information sources, sample size, etc.), and of geographical areas and health systems analyzed; thus, it is not possible to draw comparisons between them. Secondly, articles that analyzed access to services due to COVID-19 in addition to other illnesses were excluded from the study. This decision was made in order to rule out bias towards activity and resources destined to the treatment of other diseases. Third, no studies focusing on the impact of the pandemic control measures on access to health services were found, probably due to the limited terms used in our search to capture this area. Moreover, it is also possibly due to the difficulties involved in distinguishing the impact of the measures from other effects of the pandemic. Finally, some articles may not have been considered on being published in other languages (Chinese, Arabic, etc.), so this analysis may have excluded relevant information and failed to consider certain contexts. In spite of these limitations, this is the first study to address changes in access from a global perspective, with a view to shedding light on gaps in knowledge that will require further research in the future.

5. Conclusions

This review analyzed studies that reported changes in health services’ utilization, and the factors that influenced the use of services for non-COVID-19 conditions, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results vary according to the context analyzed, although, in general terms, they reflect the same trend, describing a general reduction in the use of health services, the exacerbation of preexisting barriers, and the emergence of new ones. This scoping review has shown that most studies conducted to date are limited in terms of scope and methodology and are centered mainly on the impact on specific conditions or population groups during the early stages of the pandemic, focusing mostly on secondary care. Furthermore, a significant gap in knowledge was detected on whether the services have recovered to pre-pandemic levels of care use and, if not, in which areas and for what reasons. Future studies should go into greater depth on the pandemic-related changes that have influenced access to health services (e.g., fear and socioeconomic difficulties), according to context and over the course of the different stages of the pandemic. In any case, as an ongoing phenomenon, the real impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is yet to be determined.

Competing interests

Conflicts of InterestThe authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Organización Mundial de la Salud Cronología de la Respuesta de la OMS a la COVID-19
2. Hussein J.. COVID-19: What implications for sexual and reproductive health and rights globally?. Sex. Reprod. Health Matters. 2020 doi:10.1080/26410397.2020.1746065 PubMed
3. Linn L., Oliel S., Baldwin A.. La COVID-19 afectó el Funcionamiento de los Servicios de Salud para Enfermedades no Transmisibles en las Américas—OPS/OMS|Organización Panamericana de la Salud
4. Pulse Survey on Continuity of Essential Health Services during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Interim Report, 27 August 2020. 2020
5. Second Round of the National Pulse Survey on Continuity of Essential Health Services during the COVID-19 Pandemic: January–March 2021. 2021
6. Essential Health Services: A guidance Note. How to Prioritize and Plan Essential Health Services during COVID-19 Response in Humanitarian Settings. 2020
7. Ma X., Vervoort D., Reddy C.L., Park K.B., Makasa E.. Emergency and essential surgical healthcare services during COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries: A perspective. Int. J. Surg.. 2020 doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.05.037 PubMed
8. Teslya A., Pham T.M., Godijk N.G., Kretzschmar M.E., Bootsma M.C.J.J., Rozhnova G.. Impact of self-imposed prevention measures and short-term government-imposed social distancing on mitigating and delaying a COVID-19 epidemic: A modelling study. PLoS Med.. 2020 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003166 PubMed
9. Porthé V., Vargas I., Sanz-Barbero B., Plaza-Espuña I., Bosch L., Vázquez M.L.. Changes in access to health care for immigrants in Catalonia during the economic crisis: Opinions of health professionals and immigrant users. Health Policy. 2016 doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.09.005 PubMed
10. Krishnan L., Ogunwole S.M., Cooper L.A.. Historical Insights on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the 1918 Influenza Pandemic, and Racial Disparities: Illuminating a Path Forward. Ann. Intern. Med.. 2020 doi:10.7326/M20-2223 PubMed
11. Dasgupta J., Schaaf M., Contractor S.Q., Banda A., Viana M., Kashyntseva O. et al. Axes of alienation: Applying an intersectional lens on the social contract during the pandemic response to protect sexual and reproductive rights and health. Int. J. Equity Health. 2020 doi:10.1186/s12939-020-01245-w PubMed
12. Skogberg N., Koponen P., Lilja E., Austero S., Prinkey T., Castaneda A.E.. Impact of COVID-19 on the Health and Wellbeing of Persons Who Migrated to Finland: The MigCOVID Survey 2020–2021. 2021
13. Frohlich K.L., Potvin L.. Transcending the known in public health practice: The inequality paradox: The population approach and vulnerable populations. Am. J. Public Health. 2008 doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.114777 PubMed
14. Suhrcke M., Stuckler D., Suk J.E., Desai M., Senek M., McKee M. et al. The impact of economic crises on communicable disease transmission and control: A systematic review of the evidence. PLoS ONE. 2011 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020724 PubMed
15. Nagai M., Oikawa M., Tamura T., Egami Y., Fujita N.. Can we apply lessons learned from Ebola experience in West Africa for COVID-19 in lower income countries?. Glob. Health Med.. 2020 doi:10.35772/ghm.2020.01028 PubMed
16. Nuzzo J.B., Meyer D., Snyder M., Ravi S.J., Lapascu A., Souleles J. et al. What makes health systems resilient against infectious disease outbreaks and natural hazards? Results from a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2019 doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7707-z PubMed
17. Phillips D.E., Bhutta Z.A., Binagwaho A., Boerma T., Freeman M.C., Hirschhorn L.R. et al. Learning from Exemplars in Global Health: A road map for mitigating indirect effects of COVID-19 on maternal and child health. BMJ Glob. Health. 2020 doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003430 PubMed
18. Wilhelm J.A., Helleringer S.. Utilization of non-Ebola health care services during Ebola outbreaks: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Glob. Health. 2019 doi:10.7189/jogh.09.010406 PubMed
19. Socio-Economic Impact of Ebola Virus Disease in West African Countries. 2015
20. Elston J.W.T., Cartwright C., Ndumbi P., Wright J.. The health impact of the 2014–15 Ebola outbreak. Public Health. 2017 doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2016.10.020 PubMed
21. Chang H.J., Huang N., Lee C.H., Hsu Y.J., Hsieh C.J., Chou Y.J.. The Impact of the SARS Epidemic on the Utilization of Medical Services: SARS and the Fear of SARS. Am. J. Public Health. 2004 doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.4.562 PubMed
22. Schull M.J., Stukel T.A., Vermeulen M.J., Zwarenstein M., Alter D.A., Manuel D.G. et al. Effect of widespread restrictions on the use of hospital services during an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome. Cmaj. 2007 doi:10.1503/cmaj.061174 PubMed
23. Vazquez J., Islam T., Gursky J., Beller J., Correa D.J.. Access to Care Matters: Remote Health Care Needs During COVID-19. Telemed. e-Health. 2020 doi:10.1089/tmj.2020.0371 PubMed
24. Ly J., Sathananthan V., Griffiths T., Kanjee Z., Kenny A., Gordon N. et al. Facility-Based Delivery during the Ebola Virus Disease Epidemic in Rural Liberia: Analysis from a Cross-Sectional, Population-Based Household Survey. PLoS Med.. 2016 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002096 PubMed
25. Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Guidance Document 2020. 2020
26. Correa M.. Impacto del COVID-19 en la salud sexual y reproductiva. Rev. Int. Salud Matern. Fetal. 2020
27. Masresha B.G., Luce R., Weldegebriel G., Katsande R., Gasasira A., Mihigo R.. The impact of a prolonged ebola outbreak on measles elimination activities in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, 2014–2015. Pan Afr. Med. J.. 2020 doi:10.11604/pamj.supp.2020.35.1.19059 PubMed
28. Monaghesh E., Hajizadeh A.. The role of telehealth during COVID-19 outbreak: A systematic review based on current evidence. BMC Public Health. 2020 doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09301-4 PubMed
29. Andrews E., Berghofer K., Long J., Prescott A., Caboral-Stevens M.. Satisfaction with the use of telehealth during COVID-19: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. Adv.. 2020 doi:10.1016/j.ijnsa.2020.100008 PubMed
30. Parker R., Figures E., Paddison C., Matheson J., Blane D., Ford J.. Inequalities in General Practice Remote Consultations: A Systematic Review. BJGP Open. 2021 doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0040 PubMed
31. Garfan S., Alamoodi A.H., Zaidan B.B., Al-Zobbi M., Hamid R.A., Alwan J.K. et al. Telehealth utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Comput. Biol. Med.. 2021 doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104878 PubMed
32. Khoshrounejad F., Hamednia M., Mehrjerd A., Pichaghsaz S., Jamalirad H., Sargolzaei M. et al. Telehealth-Based Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of Features and Challenges. Front. Public Health. 2021 doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.711762 PubMed
33. Montagnoli C., Zanconato G., Ruggeri S., Cinelli G., Tozzi A.E.. Restructuring maternal services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Early results of a scoping review for non-infected women. Midwifery. 2021 doi:10.1016/j.midw.2020.102916 PubMed
34. Olorunsaiye C.Z., Yusuf K.K., Reinhart K., Salihu H.M.. COVID-19 and Child Vaccination: A Systematic Approach to Closing the Immunization Gap. Int. J. Matern. Child Health AIDS. 2020 doi:10.21106/ijma.401 PubMed
35. Dhada S., Stewart D., Cheema E., Hadi M.A., Paudyal V.. Cancer services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Systematic review of patient’s and caregiver’s experiences. Cancer Manag. Res.. 2021 doi:10.2147/CMAR.S318115 PubMed
36. Alqahtani J.S., Oyelade T., Aldhahir A.M., Mendes R.G., Alghamdi S.M., Miravitlles M. et al. Reduction in hospitalised COPD exacerbations during COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2021 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255659 PubMed
37. Gulliford M., Figueroa-Munoz J., Morgan M., Hughes D., Gibson B., Beech R. et al. What does “access to health care” mean?. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy. 2002 doi:10.1258/135581902760082517 PubMed
38. Babitsch B., Gohl D., von Lengerke T.. Re-revisiting Andersen’s Behavioral Model of Health Services Use: A systematic review of studies from 1998–2011. GMS Psycho-Soc.-Med.. 2012 doi:10.3205/psm000089 PubMed
39. Aday L.A., Andersen R.. A framework for the study of access to medical care. Health Serv. Res.. 1974 PubMed
40. Andersen R.M., Davidson P.L., Andersen R., Rice T.S., Kominski J.. Improving Access to Care in America: Individual and Contextual Indicators. Changing the US Health Care System: Key Issues in Health Services Policy and Management. 2001
41. Donabedian A.. Aspects of Medical Care Administration: Specifying Requirements for Health Care. 1973
42. Pechansky R., Thomas W.. The concept of access. Definition and relationship to costumer satisfaction. Med. Care. 1981 doi:10.1097/00005650-198102000-00001 PubMed
43. Frenk J.. El concepto y la medición de la accesibilidad. Salud Pública Mex. 1985 PubMed
44. Arksey H., O’Malley L.. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. Theory Pract.. 2005 doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616
45. Tricco A.C., Lillie E., Zarin W., O’Brien K.K., Colquhoun H., Levac D. et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med.. 2018 doi:10.7326/M18-0850 PubMed
46. Abebe W., Worku A., Moges T., Tekle N., Amogne W., Haile T. et al. Trends of follow-up clinic visits and admissions three-months before and during COVID-19 pandemic at Tikur Anbessa specialized hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: An interrupted time series analysis. BMC Health Serv. Res.. 2021 doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06730-8 PubMed
47. Howarth A., Munro M., Theodorou A., Mills P.R.. Trends in healthcare utilisation during COVID-19: A longitudinal study from the UK. BMJ Open. 2021 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048151 PubMed
48. Siedner M.J., Kraemer J.D., Meyer M.J., Harling G., Mngomezulu T., Gabela P. et al. Access to primary healthcare during lockdown measures for COVID-19 in rural South Africa: An interrupted time series analysis. BMJ Open. 2020 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043763 PubMed
49. Whaley C.M., Pera M.F., Cantor J., Chang J., Velasco J., Hagg H.K. et al. Changes in Health Services Use Among Commercially Insured US Populations During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw. Open. 2020 doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.24984 PubMed
50. Zhang Y.N., Chen Y., Wang Y., Li F., Pender M., Wang N. et al. Reduction in healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. BMJ Glob. Health. 2020 doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003421 PubMed
51. Ojetti V., Covino M., Brigida M., Petruzziello C., Saviano A., Migneco A. et al. Non-COVID diseases during the pandemic: Where have all other emergencies gone?. Medicina. 2020 doi:10.3390/medicina56100512 PubMed
52. Mahmassani D., Tamim H., Makki M., Hitti E.. The impact of COVID-19 lockdown measures on ED visits in Lebanon. Am. J. Emerg. Med.. 2021 doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2020.11.067 PubMed
53. Cano-Valderrama O., Morales X., Ferrigni C.J., Martín-Antona E., Turrado V., García A. et al. Acute Care Surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: Changes in volume, causes and complications. A multicentre retrospective cohort study. Int. J. Surg.. 2020 doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.07.002 PubMed
54. Sokolski M., Gajewski P., Zymliński R., Biegus J., Berg J.M.T., Bor W. et al. Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak on Acute Admissions at the Emergency and Cardiology Departments Across Europe. Am. J. Med.. 2021 doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.08.043 PubMed
55. Tsioufis K., Chrysohoou C., Kariori M., Leontsinis I., Dalakouras I., Papanikolaou A. et al. The mystery of “missing” visits in an emergency cardiology department, in the era of COVID-19.; a time-series analysis in a tertiary Greek General Hospital. Clin. Res. Cardiol.. 2020 doi:10.1007/s00392-020-01682-1 PubMed
56. Choi A., Bae W., Kim K., Kim S.. Impact of COVID-19 on the visit of pediatric patients with injuries to the emergency department in korea. Children. 2021 doi:10.3390/children8070568 PubMed
57. Dopfer C., Wetzke M., Zychlinsky Scharff A., Mueller F., Dressler F., Baumann U. et al. COVID-19 related reduction in pediatric emergency healthcare utilization—A concerning trend. BMC Pediatr.. 2020 doi:10.1186/s12887-020-02303-6 PubMed
58. Finkelstein Y., Maguire B., Zemek R., Osmanlliu E., Kam A.J., Dixon A. et al. Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patient Volumes, Acuity, and Outcomes in Pediatric Emergency Departments: A Nationwide Study. Pediatr. Emerg. Care. 2021 doi:10.1097/PEC.0000000000002484 PubMed
59. Goldman R.D., Grafstein E., Barclay N., Irvine M.A., Portales-Casamar E.. Paediatric patients seen in 18 emergency departments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Emerg. Med. J.. 2020 doi:10.1136/emermed-2020-210273 PubMed
60. Percul C., Cruz M., Meza A.C., González G., Lerendegui L., Malzone M.C. et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pediatric population with acute appendicitis: Experience at a general, tertiary care hospital. Arch. Argent. Pediatr.. 2021 doi:10.5546/aap.2021.eng.224 PubMed
61. Yamamoto H., Morikawa Y., Hagiwara Y., Hataya H.. Pediatric emergency healthcare utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic in Tokyo. Pediatr. Int.. 2021 doi:10.1111/ped.14936 PubMed
62. Ball S., Banerjee A., Berry C., Boyle J.R., Bray B., Bradlow W. et al. Monitoring indirect impact of COVID-19 pandemic on services for cardiovascular diseases in the UK. Heart. 2020 doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2020-317870 PubMed
63. Kute V.B., Gupta A., Patel H.V., Engineer D.P., Banerjee S., Rizvi S.J. et al. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on nephrology and transplant services and clinical training in India. Exp. Clin. Transplant.. 2021 doi:10.6002/ect.2021.0018 PubMed
64. Morris E.J.A., Goldacre R., Spata E., Mafham M., Finan P.J., Shelton J. et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the detection and management of colorectal cancer in England: A population-based study. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol.. 2021 doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00005-4 PubMed
65. Pareek A., Patel A.A., Harshavardhan A., Kuttikat P.G., Pendse S., Dhyani A. et al. Impact of nationwide lockdown on cancer care during COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective analysis from western India. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev.. 2021 doi:10.1016/j.dsx.2021.05.004 PubMed
66. Shi G., Huang J., Pi M., Chen X., Li X., Ding Y. et al. Impact of early Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on pediatric cardiac surgery in China. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.. 2021 doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.11.074 PubMed
67. Ambrosetti J., Macheret L., Folliet A., Wullschleger A., Amerio A., Aguglia A. et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychiatric admissions to a large swiss emergency department: An observational study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021 doi:10.3390/ijerph18031174 PubMed
68. Aragona M., Barbato A., Cavani A., Costanzo G., Mirisola C.. Negative impacts of COVID-19 lockdown on mental health service access and follow-up adherence for immigrants and individuals in socio-economic difficulties. Public Health. 2020 doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2020.06.055 PubMed
69. Jesenšek Papež B., Šošić L., Bojnec V.. The consequences of COVID-19 outbreak on outpatient rehabilitation services: A single-center experience in Slovenia. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med.. 2021 doi:10.23736/S1973-9087.21.06678-8 PubMed
70. Farrugia Y., Spiteri Meilak B.P., Grech N., Asciak R., Camilleri L., Montefort S. et al. The Impact of COVID-19 on Hospitalised COPD Exacerbations in Malta. Pulm. Med.. 2021 doi:10.1155/2021/5533123 PubMed
71. Burt J.F., Ouma J., Lubyayi L., Amone A., Aol L., Sekikubo M. et al. Indirect effects of COVID-19 on maternal, neonatal, child, sexual and reproductive health services in Kampala, Uganda. BMJ Glob. Health. 2021 doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006102 PubMed
72. Jensen C., McKerrow N.H.. Child health services during a COVID-19 outbreak in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. S. Afr. Med. J.. 2020 doi:10.7196/SAMJ.2021.v111i2.15243 PubMed
73. Justman N., Shahak G., Gutzeit O., Ben Zvi D., Ginsberg Y., Solt I. et al. Lockdown with a Price: The impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Prenatal Care and Perinatal Outcomes in a Tertiary Care Center. Isr. Med. Assoc. J.. 2020 PubMed
74. KC A., Gurung R., Kinney M.V., Sunny A.K., Moinuddin M., Basnet O. et al. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic response on intrapartum care, stillbirth, and neonatal mortality outcomes in Nepal: A prospective observational study. Lancet Glob. Health. 2020 doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30345-4 PubMed
75. Marques-Fernandez L., Sharma S., Mannu U., Chong H.P.. Impact of COVID-19 on attendances for a 1stepisode of reduced fetal movements: A retrospective observational study. PLoS ONE. 2021 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253796 PubMed
76. Shakespeare C., Dube H., Moyo S., Ngwenya S.. Resilience and vulnerability of maternity services in Zimbabwe: A comparative analysis of the effect of COVID-19 and lockdown control measures on maternal and perinatal outcomes, a single-centre cross-sectional study at Mpilo Central Hospital. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 doi:10.1186/s12884-021-03884-5 PubMed
77. Spurlin E.E., Han E.S., Silver E.R., May B.L., Tatonetti N.P., Ingram M.A. et al. Where Have All the Emergencies Gone? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Obstetric and Gynecologic Procedures and Consults at a New York City Hospital. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol.. 2020 doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2020.11.012 PubMed
78. Chiba H., Lewis M., Benjamin E.R., Jakob D.A., Liasidis P., Wong M.D. et al. “Safer at home”: The effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on epidemiology, resource utilization, and outcomes at a large urban trauma center. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg.. 2021 doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000003061 PubMed
79. Horan J., Duddy J.C., Gilmartin B., Amoo M., Nolan D., Corr P. et al. The impact of COVID-19 on trauma referrals to a National Neurosurgical Centre. Ir. J. Med. Sci.. 2021 doi:10.1007/s11845-021-02504-7 PubMed
80. Alexander G.C., Tajanlangit M., Heyward J., Mansour O., Qato D.M., Stafford R.S.. Use and Content of Primary Care Office-Based vs Telemedicine Care Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US. JAMA Netw. Open. 2020 doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.21476 PubMed
81. Sato K., Mano T., Niimi Y., Iwata A., Toda T., Iwatsubo T.. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the utilization of ambulatory care for patients with chronic neurological diseases in Japan: Evaluation of an administrative claims database. Biosci. Trends. 2021 doi:10.5582/bst.2021.01194 PubMed
82. Song H., Bergman A., Chen A.T., Ellis D., David G., Friedman A.B. et al. Disruptions in preventive care: Mammograms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Serv. Res.. 2021 doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13596 PubMed
83. Kahraman A.B., Yildiz Y., Çiki K., Akar H.T., Erdal I., Dursun A. et al. Invisible burden of COVID-19: Enzyme replacement therapy disruptions. J. Pediatr. Endocrinol. Metab.. 2021 doi:10.1515/jpem-2021-0067 PubMed
84. Nicholson E., McDonnell T., Conlon C., Barrett M., Cummins F., Hensey C. et al. Parental Hesitancy and Concerns around Accessing Paediatric Unscheduled Healthcare during COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020 doi:10.3390/ijerph17249264 PubMed
85. Benjamen J., Girard V., Jamani S., Magwood O., Holland T., Sharfuddin N. et al. Access to refugee and migrant mental health care services during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic: A canadian refugee clinician survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021 doi:10.3390/ijerph18105266 PubMed
86. Halley M.C., Stanley T., Maturi J., Goldenberg A.J., Bernstein J.A., Wheeler M.T. et al. “It seems like COVID-19 now is the only disease present on Earth”: Living with a rare or undiagnosed disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. Genet. Med.. 2021 doi:10.1038/s41436-020-01069-7 PubMed
87. Adelekan B., Goldson E., Abubakar Z., Mueller U., Alayande A., Ojogun T. et al. Effect of COVID-19 pandemic on provision of sexual and reproductive health services in primary health facilities in Nigeria: A cross-sectional study. Reprod. Health. 2021 doi:10.1186/s12978-021-01217-5 PubMed
88. Karavadra B., Stockl A., Prosser-Snelling E., Simpson P., Morris E.. Women’s perceptions of COVID-19 and their healthcare experiences: A qualitative thematic analysis of a national survey of pregnant women in the United Kingdom. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 doi:10.1186/s12884-020-03283-2 PubMed
89. Khan M.S., Rego S., Rajal J.B., Bond V., Fatima R.K., Isani A.K. et al. Mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on tuberculosis and HIV services: A cross-sectional survey of 669 health professionals in 64 low and middle-income countries. PLoS ONE. 2021 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244936 PubMed
90. García-Rojo E., Manfredi C., Santos-Pérez-de-la-Blanca R., Tejido-Sánchez A., García-Gómez B., Aliaga-Benítez M. et al. Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on urology surgical waiting lists and waiting lists prioritization strategies in the Post-COVID-19 era. Actas Urol. Esp.. 2021 doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2020.11.001 PubMed
91. Zambrano-Barragán P., Ramírez Hernández S., Freier L.F., Luzes M., Sobczyk R., Rodríguez A. et al. The impact of COVID-19 on Venezuelan migrants’ access to health: A qualitative study in Colombian and Peruvian cities. J. Migr. Health. 2021 doi:10.1016/j.jmh.2020.100029 PubMed
92. Danhieux K., Buffel V., Pairon A., Benkheil A., Remmen R., Wouters E. et al. The impact of COVID-19 on chronic care according to providers: A qualitative study among primary care practices in Belgium. BMC Fam. Pract.. 2020 doi:10.1186/s12875-020-01326-3 PubMed
93. Gichuna S., Hassan R., Sanders T., Campbell R., Mutonyi M., Mwangi P.. Access to Healthcare in a time of COVID-19: Sex Workers in Crisis in Nairobi, Kenya. Glob. Public Health. 2020 doi:10.1080/17441692.2020.1810298 PubMed
94. Hailemariam S., Agegnehu W., Derese M.. Exploring COVID-19 Related Factors Influencing Antenatal Care Services Uptake: A Qualitative Study among Women in a Rural Community in Southwest Ethiopia. J. Prim. Care Community Health. 2021 doi:10.1177/2150132721996892 PubMed
95. Mizrak Sahin B., Kabakci E.N.. The experiences of pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey: A qualitative study. Women Birth. 2020 doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2020.09.022 PubMed
96. Dos Santos F.L., Souza L.L.L., Bruce A.T.I., De Almeida Crispim J., Arroyo L.H., Ramos A.C.V. et al. Patients’ perceptions regarding multidrugresistant tuberculosis and barriers to seeking care in a priority city in Brazil during COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study. PLoS ONE. 2021 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249822 PubMed
97. Ahmed S.A.K.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 doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003042 PubMed
98. das Neves Martins Pires P.H., Macaringue C., Abdirazak A., Mucufo J.R., Mupueleque M.A., Zakus D. et al. COVID-19 pandemic impact on maternal and child health services access in Nampula, Mozambique: A mixed methods research. BMC Health Serv. Res.. 2021 doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06878-3 PubMed
99. COVID-19: Un Enfoque de Género. Proteger la Salud y los Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos y Promover la Igualdad de Género. 2020
100. COVID-19 Pandemic Leads to Major Backsliding on Childhood Vaccinations, New WHO, UNICEF Data Shows
101. Abdelbadee A.Y., Abbas A.M.. Impact of COVID-19 on reproductive health and maternity services in low resource countries. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care. 2020 doi:10.1080/13625187.2020.1768527 PubMed
102. Kimani R.W., Maina R., Shumba C., Shaibu S.. Maternal and newborn care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kenya: Re-contextualising the community midwifery model. Hum. Resour. Health. 2020 doi:10.1186/s12960-020-00518-3 PubMed
103. Chattu V.K., Yaya S.. Emerging infectious diseases and outbreaks: Implications for women’s reproductive health and rights in resource-poor settings. Reprod. Health. 2020 doi:10.1186/s12978-020-0899-y PubMed
104. Murewanhema G., Makurumidze R.. Essential health services delivery in Zimbabwe during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives and recommendations. Pan Afr. Med. J.. 2020 doi:10.11604/pamj.supp.2020.35.2.25367 PubMed
105. Chandrasekaran S., Diamond-Smith N., Srinivasan K., Dalvie S.. Preparing for an Increased Need for Abortion Access in India during and after COVID-19: Challenges and Strategies. Stud. Fam. Plann.. 2020 doi:10.1111/sifp.12139 PubMed
106. Dasgupta A., Kantorová V., Ueffing P.. The impact of the COVID-19 crisis on meeting needs for family planning: A global scenario by contraceptive methods used. Gates Open Res.. 2020 doi:10.12688/gatesopenres.13148.2 PubMed
107. Kumar N.. COVID 19 era: A beginning of upsurge in unwanted pregnancies, unmet need for contraception and other women related issues. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care. 2020 doi:10.1080/13625187.2020.1777398 PubMed
108. Tang K., Gaoshan J., Ahonsi B.. Sexual and reproductive health (SRH): A key issue in the emergency response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. Reprod. Health. 2020 doi:10.1186/s12978-020-0900-9 PubMed
109. Nandagiri R., Coast E., Strong J.. COVID-19 and abortion: Making structural violence visible. Int. Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health. 2020 doi:10.1363/46e1320 PubMed
110. Onwuzurike C., Meadows A.R., Nour N.M.. Examining Inequities Associated With Changes in Obstetric and Gynecologic Care Delivery During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. Obstet. Gynecol.. 2020 doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003933 PubMed
111. Suh-Burgmann E.J., Alavi M., Schmittdiel J.. Endometrial Cancer Detection During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. Obstet. Gynecol.. 2020 doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004087 PubMed
112. Sharma K.A., Zangmo R., Kumari A., Roy K.K., Bharti J.. Family planning and abortion services in COVID 19 pandemic. Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol.. 2020 doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2020.09.005 PubMed
113. Goyal M., Singh P., Singh K., Shekhar S., Agrawal N., Misra S.. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal health due to delay in seeking health care: Experience from a tertiary center. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet.. 2021 doi:10.1002/ijgo.13457 PubMed
114. Tirado V., Chu J., Hanson C., Ekström A.M., Kågesten A.. Barriers and facilitators for the sexual and reproductive health and rights of young people in refugee contexts globally: A scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2020 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236316 PubMed
115. Maringe C., Spicer J., Morris M., Purushotham A., Nolte E., Sullivan R. et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer deaths due to delays in diagnosis in England, UK: A national, population-based, modelling study. Lancet Oncol.. 2020 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30388-0 PubMed
116. Shinan-Altman S., Levkovich I., Tavori G.. Healthcare utilization among breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 outbreak. Palliat. Support. Care. 2020 doi:10.1017/S1478951520000516 PubMed
117. Marzo-Castillejo M., Guiriguet Capdevila C., Coma Redon E.. The impact of COVID-19 on cancer diagnosis delay: Possible consequences. Aten. Primaria. 2021 doi:10.1016/j.aprim.2021.102142 PubMed
118. Arolas H.P.i., Vidal-Alaball J., Gil J., López F., Nicodemo C., Saez M.. Missing diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic: A year in review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021 doi:10.3390/ijerph18105335 PubMed
119. Chau S.W.H., Wong O.W.H., Ramakrishnan R., Chan S.S.M., Wong E.K.Y., Li P.Y.T. et al. History for some or lesson for all? A systematic review and meta-analysis on the immediate and long-term mental health impact of the 2002–2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak. BMC Public Health. 2021 doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10701-3 PubMed
120. Weinberger M., Hayes B., White J., Skibiak J.. Doing things differently: What it would take to ensure continued access to contraception during COVID-19. Glob. Health Sci. Pract.. 2020 doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-20-00171 PubMed
121. McLean M., Abuelaish I.. Access to reproductive health care services in countries of conflict: The double impact of conflict and COVID-19. Med. Confl. Surviv.. 2020 doi:10.1080/13623699.2020.1832724 PubMed
122. Abdela S.G., Van Griensven J., Seife F., Enbiale W.. Neglecting the effect of COVID-19 on neglected tropical diseases: The Ethiopian perspective. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg.. 2020 doi:10.1093/trstmh/traa072 PubMed
123. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Family Planning and Ending Gender-Based Violence, Female Genital Mutilation and Child Marriage. 2020
124. Organización Mundial de la Salud Los Servicios de Salud Mental se Están Viendo Perturbados por la COVID-19 en la Mayoría de los Países, Según un Estudio de la OMS
125. Karos K., McParland J.L., Bunzli S., Devan H., Hirsh A., Kapos F.P. et al. The social threats of COVID-19 for people with chronic pain. Pain. 2020 doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002004 PubMed
126. Diamond L.C., Jacobs E.A., Karliner L.. Providing equitable care to patients with limited dominant language proficiency amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient Educ. Couns.. 2020 doi:10.1016/j.pec.2020.05.028 PubMed
127. Betancourt J.A., Rosenberg M.A., Zevallos A., Brown J.R., Mileski M.. The Impact of COVID-19 on Telemedicine Utilization Across Multiple Service Lines in the United States. Healthcare. 2020 doi:10.3390/healthcare8040380 PubMed
128. Fryer K., Delgado A., Foti T., Reid C.N., Marshall J.. Implementation of Obstetric Telehealth During COVID-19 and Beyond. Matern. Child Health J.. 2020 doi:10.1007/s10995-020-02967-7 PubMed
129. Contreras C.M., Metzger G.A., Beane J.D., Dedhia P.H., Ejaz A., Pawlik T.M.. Telemedicine: Patient-Provider Clinical Engagement During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond. J. Gastrointest. Surg.. 2020 doi:10.1007/s11605-020-04623-5 PubMed
130. Ramaswamy A., Yu M., Drangsholt S., Ng E., Culligan P.J., Schlegel P.N. et al. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: Retrospective cohort study. J. Med. Internet Res.. 2020 doi:10.2196/20786 PubMed
131. Aiken A.R.A., Starling J.E., Gomperts R., Tec M., Scott J.G., Aiken C.E.. Demand for Self-Managed Online Telemedicine Abortion in the United States During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. Obstet. Gynecol.. 2020 doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004081 PubMed
132. Eberly L.A., Kallan M.J., Julien H.M., Haynes N., Khatana S.A.M., Nathan A.S. et al. Patient Characteristics Associated With Telemedicine Access for Primary and Specialty Ambulatory Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw. Open. 2020 doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.31640 PubMed
133. Mann D.M., Chen J., Chunara R., Testa P.A., Nov O.. COVID-19 transforms health care through telemedicine: Evidence from the field. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.. 2020 doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaa072 PubMed
134. Limaye M.A., Lantigua-Martinez M., Trostle M.E., Penfield C.A., Conroy E.M., Roman A.S. et al. Differential Uptake of Telehealth for Prenatal Care in a Large New York City Academic Obstetrical Practice during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Am. J. Perinatol.. 2020 doi:10.1055/s-0040-1721510 PubMed
135. Futterman I., Rosenfeld E., Toaff M., Boucher T., Golden-Espinal S., Evans K. et al. Addressing Disparities in Prenatal Care via Telehealth during COVID-19: Prenatal Satisfaction Survey in East Harlem. Am. J. Perinatol.. 2021 doi:10.1055/s-0040-1718695 PubMed
136. Schweiberger K., Hoberman A., Iagnemma J., Schoemer P., Squire J., Taormina J. et al. Practice-level variation in telemedicine use in a pediatric primary care network during the COVID-19 pandemic: Retrospective analysis and survey study. J. Med. Internet Res.. 2020 doi:10.2196/24345 PubMed
137. Riley T., Sully E., Ahmed Z., Biddlecom A.. Estimates of the Potential Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Sexual and Reproductive Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Int. Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health. 2020 doi:10.1363/46e9020 PubMed
138. 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. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health. 2020 doi:10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30108-5 PubMed
139. Shayganfard M., Mahdavi F., Haghighi M., Bahmani D.S., Brand S.. Health anxiety predicts postponing or cancelling routine medical health care appointments among women in perinatal stage during the COVID-19 lockdown. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020 doi:10.3390/ijerph17218272 PubMed
140. Mauro V., Lorenzo M., Paolo C., Sergio H.. Treat all COVID 19-positive patients, but do not forget those negative with chronic diseases. Intern. Emerg. Med.. 2020 doi:10.1007/s11739-020-02395-z PubMed
141. Pant S., Koirala S., Subedi M.. Access to Maternal Health Services during COVID-19. Eur. J. Med. Sci.. 2020 doi:10.46405/ejms.v2i2.110
142. Nab M., van Vehmendahl R., Somers I., Schoon Y., Hesselink G.. Delayed emergency healthcare seeking behaviour by Dutch emergency department visitors during the first COVID-19 wave: A mixed methods retrospective observational study. BMC Emerg. Med.. 2021 doi:10.1186/s12873-021-00449-9 PubMed
143. Jones S.A., Gopalakrishnan S., Ameh C.A., White S., Van Den Broek N.R., Van Den Broek N.R.. ‘Women and babies are dying but not of Ebola’: The effect of the Ebola virus epidemic on the availability, uptake and outcomes of maternal and newborn health services in Sierra Leone. BMJ Glob. Health. 2016 doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000065 PubMed
144. Townsend R., Chmielewska B., Barratt I., Kalafat E., van der Meulen J., Gurol-Urganci I. et al. Global changes in maternity care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2021 doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100947 PubMed
145. Germain S., Yong A.. COVID-19 Highlighting Inequalities in Access to Healthcare in England: A Case Study of Ethnic Minority and Migrant Women. Fem. Leg. Stud.. 2020 doi:10.1007/s10691-020-09437-z PubMed