Search

Background Multimorbidity is associated with higher utilization of healthcare services. However, many countries do not consider multimorbidity when estimating physician supply. The main aim of this study was to assess how regional multimorbidity levels can be integrated when estimating the need for office-based physician supply. Methods Claims data were used to measure and compare the proportions of multimorbid patients of GPs, ophthalmologists, orthopaedic specialists and neurologists, and examine spatial variations through Bernoulli cluster analysis of regional multimorbidity levels. To explore the interrelationship between current capacities and spatial occurrence of high-rate clusters, clusters were compared with the current supply of physicians. Results About 17 239 488 individuals out of approximately 67 million records were classified as multimorbid. Multimorbidity levels varied greatly between physician disciplines (31.5–60.1%). Bernoulli cluster analysis demonstrated that many high-rate areas were found for all specialized physicians, but clusters varied partially by size and location. The comparison with current physician supply at cluster level showed that more than a third of clusters with a significantly higher share of morbid patients seeing a GP are met, on an average, by GP supply below targeted values. In turn, clusters with significantly higher multimorbidity levels of specialized physicians were met, on an average, by supply that exceeded targeted values. Conclusion Our study offers an approach to how to include discipline-specific multimorbidity at area level when estimating physician supply and discusses its relevance. The outcomes of our article can be used by policymakers to advance current planning strategies and to improve the quality of office-based care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: SHARE TO CARE (S2C) is a comprehensive, multi-module implementation program for shared decision making (SDM). It is currently applied at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel, Germany, and among general practitioners at the Federal State of Bremen. This study examines the results of the full implementation of S2C in terms of effectiveness within the Kiel Neuromedical Center comprising the departments of neurology and neurosurgery. Method and Design: The S2C program consists of four combined intervention modules: 1) multimodal training of physicians; 2) a patient activation campaign including the ASK-3 method; 3) digital evidence-based patient decision aids; and 4) SDM support by nurses, e.g., as decision coaches. The SDM level before and immediately after implementation was retrospectively assessed in consecutively selected patients on the subscale "Patient Decision Making" of the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICSPDM). Mean scores were compared with t-tests. Results: Eighty-nine percent of all physicians (N = 56) completed the SDM training. We developed a total of 12 evidence-based digital decision aids in the center, educated two decision coaches to support patients' decision processes by using decision aids. Physicians adjusted patients' pathways to incorporate the use of decision aids. Patients (n = 261) reported a significant increase in participation (p< 0.001; Hedges' g = 0.49) in medical decision making. Conclusion: The S2C program has been successfully implemented within the entire Neuromedical Center. Patients reported a medium to small increase of perceived involvement in decision making demonstrating the effectiveness of the implementation. For future research, it might be interesting to investigate the sustainability of the effects of S2C. In addition, it seems useful to complement the patient-based evaluation with observer-based data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: SHARE TO CARE (S2C) is a comprehensive implementation program for shared decision making (SDM). It is run at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH) in Kiel, Germany, and consists of four combined intervention modules addressing healthcare professionals and patients: (1) multimodal training of physicians (2) patient activation campaign including the ASK3 method, (3) online evidence-based patient decision aids (4) SDM support by nurses. This study examines the sustainability of the hospital wide SDM implementation by means of the Neuromedical Center comprising the Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery. Methods: Between 2018 and 2020, the S2Cprogramwas applied initially within the Neuromedical Center: We implemented the patient activation campaign, trained 89% of physicians (N = 56), developed 12 patient decision aids and educated two decision coaches. Physicians adjusted the patients' pathways to facilitate the use of decision aids. To maintain the initial implementation, the departments took care that new staff members received training and decision aids were updated. The patient activation campaign was continued. To determine the sustainability of the initial intervention, the SDM level after a maintenance phase of 6-18months was compared to the baseline level before implementation. Therefore, in- and outpatients received a questionnaire via mail after discharge. The primary endpoint was the "Patient Decision Making" subscale of the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICSPDM). Secondary endpoints were an additional scale measuring SDM (CollaboRATE), and the PrepDM scale, which determines patients' perceived health literacy while preparing for decision making. Mean scale scores were compared using t-tests. Results: Patients reported a significantly increased SDM level (PICSPDM p = 0.02; Hedges' g = 0.33; CollaboRATE p = 0.05; Hedges' g = 0.26) and improved preparation for decision making (PrepDM p = 0.001; Hedges' g = 0.34) 6-18 months after initial implementation of S2C. Discussion: The S2C program demonstrated its sustainability within the Neuromedical Center at UKSH Kiel in terms of increased SDM and health literacy. Maintaining the SDM implementation required a fraction of the initial intensity. The departments took on the responsibility for maintenance. Meanwhile, an additional health insurance-based reimbursement for S2C secures the continued application of the program. Conclusion: SHARE TO CARE promises to be suitable for long-lasting implementation of SDM in hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the 12-month cost-effectiveness of the nurse-led transitional care program "Cardiolotse" (CL) for patients with cardiovascular diseases compared to usual care (UC)., Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) were conducted from the perspective of statutory health insurance (SHI), covering a time horizon of 12 months. Analyzed outcomes included the number of rehospitalizations and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Total costs comprised program costs and the utilization of healthcare resources. Point estimates are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to illustrate uncertainty and provide insights into the impact mechanisms of the CL program., Results: The study population consisted of 2550 patients, with 1256 allocated to the intervention group and 1294 to the control group. Patients who received support from CLs experienced fewer rehospitalizations and lower inpatient costs from an SHI perspective, compared to the UC group. HRQoL assessments indicated higher utility values for CL patients at the 12-month follow-up. Total program costs amounted to €1454.65 per patient. The CEA and CUA demonstrate that the CL program is dominant compared to UC from the SHI perspective., Conclusion: Our study shows that the CL program not only reduces the number of rehospitalizations and costs but increases HRQoL, resulting in a dominant ICER and ICUR. Further research is necessary to evaluate longer periods of time, different levels of care intensity, and perspectives of different healthcare stakeholders., Trial Registration: German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00020424, 2020-06-18, retrospectively registered., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Health inequalities start early in life. The time of young adulthood, between late teens and early twenties, is especially interesting in this regard. This time of emerging adulthood, the transition from being a child to becoming an adult, is characterized by the detachment from parents and establishing of an own independent life. From a health inequality perspective, the question about the importance of the socio-economic background of parents is important. University students are an especially interesting group. Many students come from a privileged background and the question of health inequality among university students has not yet been properly studied., Methods: Based on the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS), we analyzed health inequalities among 9,000 students in Germany (∅ 20 years in the first year of their studies) over a period of 8 years., Results: We found that most university students (92%) in Germany reported a good and very good health. Yet, we still found substantial health inequalities. Students whose parents had a higher occupational status reported less health problems. Additionally, we observed that health inequalities had indirect impact on health via health behavior, psychosocial resources, and material conditions., Discussion: We believe our study is an important contribution to the understudied subject of students' health. We see the impact of social inequality on health among such a privileged group like university students as an important sign of the importance of health inequality., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Deindl, Diehl, Spallek, Richter, Schüttig, Rattay, Dragano and Pischke.)

Introduction: Providing comprehensive stroke care poses major organisational and financial challenges to the German healthcare system. The quasi-randomised TEMPiS-Flying Intervention Team (TEMPiS-FIT) study aims to close the gap in the treatment of patients who had ischaemic stroke in rural areas of Southeast Bavaria by flying a team of interventionalists via helicopter directly to patients in the regional TEMPiS hospitals instead of transporting the patients to the next comprehensive stroke centre. The objective of the present paper is to describe the methods for the economic evaluation (TEMPiS-Gesundheitsökonomische Analyse (TEMPiS-GÖA)) alongside the TEMPiS-FIT study to determine whether the new form of care is cost-effective compared with standard care., Methods and Analysis: The within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) will be performed from a statutory health insurance perspective as well as from a societal perspective over the time horizon of 12 months after the patients' hospital discharge. Direct costs from outpatient and inpatient care are collected from routine data of the participating health insurance funds, while medical and non-medical costs from a patient's perspective are retrieved from primary data collected during the TEMPiS-FIT study and follow-up questionnaires. Results will be presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental cost-utility ratio quantifying the incremental costs and health benefits compared with standard care practice. The outcome of the CEA will be measured in costs per minute reduction in mean process time to thrombectomy. The outcome of the CUA will be presented as costs per quality-adjusted life year gained., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval for the TEMPiS-FIT study was granted by the Bavarian State Medical Association Ethics Committee (# 17056). Results will be disseminated via reports, presentations of the results in publications and at conferences and on the TEMPiS website., Trial Registration Number: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00023885. Registered on 2 July 2021 - retrospectively registered., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The main objective was to systematically map evidence regarding the emergence of health inequalities in individuals aged 16-24 years during school-to-work and school-to-university transition (STWT). Second, we aimed to summarise the evidence on potential effects of contextual and compositional characteristics of specific institutional contexts entered during STWT on health and health behaviours., Design: Scoping review., Study Selection: Relevant literature was systematically searched following the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science, and websites of the International Labour Organization and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health were searched, using a predetermined search strategy. Articles in English or German published between 1 January 2000 and 3 February 2020 were considered., Data Extraction: To collect the main information from the selected studies, a data extraction spreadsheet was created. Data were summarised and grouped into five health outcomes and five institutional contexts (school, vocational training, university, work, unemployment)., Results: A total of 678 articles were screened for inclusion. To be able to draw a picture of the development of various health outcomes over time, we focused on longitudinal studies. Forty-six prospective studies mapping health-related outcomes during STWT were identified. Higher family socioeconomic position (SEP) was associated with higher levels of health behaviour and lower levels of health-damaging behaviour, but there was also some evidence pointing in the opposite direction. Disadvantaged family SEP negatively impacted on mental health and predicted an adverse weight development. There was limited evidence for the outcomes physical/somatic symptoms and self-rated health. Meso-level characteristics of the institutional contexts identified were not systematically assessed, only individual-level factors resulting from an exposure to these contexts, rendering an analysis of effects of contextual and compositional characteristics on health and health behaviours impossible., Conclusions: This scoping review demonstrated a wide range of health inequalities during STWT for various health outcomes. However, knowledge on the role of the core institutional contexts regarding the development of health inequalities is limited., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Although the impact of macrolevel characteristics of health systems on socioeconomic inequity in health has been studied extensively, the impact of access characteristics on a smaller scale of health systems has received less attention. These mesolevel characteristics can influence access to healthcare and might have the potential to moderate or aggravate socioeconomic inequity in healthcare use. This scoping review aims to map the existing evidence of the association of socioeconomic inequity in healthcare use and mesolevel access characteristics of the health system., Methods and Analysis: In conducting the scoping review, we follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews. The search will be carried out in four scientific databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO. Main eligibility criteria are inclusion in the analysis of a measure of socioeconomic position, a measure of individual healthcare use and a mesolevel determinant of access to healthcare services. The selection process consists of two consecutive screening stages (first: title/abstract; second: full text). At both stages, two reviewers independently assess the eligibility of studies. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer will be involved. Cohen's kappa will be calculated to report inter-rater agreement between reviewers. Results are synthesised narratively, as a high heterogeneity of studies is expected., Ethics and Dissemination: No primary data are collected for the presented scoping review. Therefore, ethical approval is not necessary. The scoping review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal, and findings will be presented on national and international conferences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)