Search

Background: The Good Practice Guidelines for health information, Good Health Information Austria and Guideline Evidence-based Health Information are established resources for developing evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions. The aim of this project was to capture challenges in applying these standards in practice, identify gaps and development needs and gain insights for their further development., Methods: In December 2020, members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine were invited to share their experiences and needs in applying German standards for evidence-based health information through an online survey focussing on open questions (part 1: needs assessment). The feedback was analysed using qualitative content analysis and presented in a workshop at the EbM Congress 2021 with the goal of specifying the feedback from the needs assessment and discussing ideas for the further development of the standards (part 2: specification). In the final step, a second survey was conducted in February 2023 to prioritize the identified topics by the working group members (part 3: prioritization). The results were analysed descriptively., Results: Among the 41 participants, only 23% considered the standards to be sufficient, and only 55% found their application in the development of information to be easy or rather easy. The needs assessment and workshop (n=46) helped to identify various areas of action. With regard to the application of the standards, the following challenges were identified: lack of user orientation, content gaps, methods and risk communication. Gaps in the standards were identified regarding formats, content, and the connection to healthcare provision. For the advancement of the standards ideas for additional content, stakeholder involvement, and improvement of the usability of the standards were identified. In the prioritization survey, the topic areas, "presenting benefits and harms" and "content beyond treatments (in particular, diagnostics and prognosis)" were considered to be the most important (n=36)., Discussion: Among members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine, a high demand has been identified for the further development of standards for creating evidence-based health information. In addition to content development, the integration of existing documents and tools should also be considered, including products issued by other institutions. The success of advancing the standards also depends on improving their applicability - for example through an attractive online platform. The results are limited by the sample which only included members of the EbM Network's patient information and participation working group and a limited response rate., Conclusions: The needs assessment showed that the currently established standards and recommendations for the development of evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions represent important cornerstones but need to be expanded to answer more practice-oriented questions. The challenges and proposed solutions stated by the participants can help further develop the standards. The prioritization can be used to set priorities for the development of the standards, guide the order of possible work packages and allocate resources., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Information for patients with rare diseases has to adhere to strict quality criteria in order to support individual treatment decisions or coping strategies. However, developers are facing specific challenges: For example, the evidence is often insufficient or of very low quality. In the context of the National Action League for People with Rare Diseases (NAMSE), criteria have been developed that assure high-quality information on rare diseases. Core criteria comprise the involvement of patients or their advocates in all stages of the development process, the systematic search and assessment of the evidence, systematic collection of patient experience, transparency in terms of people involved and funding, and nondirective and neutral formulation of content and documentation of the process. In a joint project between the Alliance for Chronic Rare Diseases (ACHSE e. V.) and the German Agency for Quality in Medicine (ÄZQ), ten short information leaflets on different rare diseases have been developed in the past three years, conceived to show the applicability of these criteria. First experiences with this format show that the criteria are adaptive to a broad range of diverse rare diseases and settings. Involving patients and their advocates throughout the whole development process - from prioritization to development of methods and provision of patient experience and coping strategies - is crucial. Insufficient evidence remains a challenge. The examples show that in the absence of proven findings, information that matters to patients and reflects this uncertainty is feasible.

Background: A central information portal on rare diseases (ZIPSE) has been conceptualized and implemented that allows patients, relatives and health care professionals to access quality-assured information. For this purpose, quality criteria have been developed specifically for rare diseases. At the same time, the information basis should take into account the specific needs of those interested., Objectives: The needs of patients and relatives regarding online-based information are analyzed. Based on this, we examined to what extent the information basis, which is available according to the ZIPSE quality criteria, can cover these needs. If necessary, measures have to be developed to ensure quality- as well as needs-oriented information management., Materials and Methods: Qualitative interviews with patients and relatives were conducted, which were then evaluated using content analysis. Subsequently, a quantitative evaluation of the information on rare diseases in the portal was made. The research addresses how many websites do not fulfil the quality criteria, from which group of provider these websites originate and which criteria are not fulfilled. This is followed by a comparison of the quantitative and qualitative results., Results and Conclusions: When looking for information on the Internet, the websites of self-help groups represent a significant source. These are perceived as very trustworthy and in the later course of the disease, offer detailed information on important information areas. Information websites from self-help groups, however, often do not meet quality requirements. Therefore, a transparent representation is made regarding the quality of the ZIPSE information pages. Pages that are not quality-assured can be actively requested, but will be clearly identified.

Objectives: Aims of this study are to provide (i) a presentation of quality of care information about German hospitals on internet report cards, and (ii) derive a guidance tool for using certain report cards. Methods: We undertook (i) a systematic internet search to identify hospital report cards, (ii) whereby several inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, (iii) We developed a scheme to describe the presented quality information, (iv) We also analysed the report cards and (v) evaluated the results and derived further usage guidance. Results: 18 report cards were included. 8 report cards present nationwide quality information while ten report cards focus on regional areas. The AOK Krankenhaus-navigator provides the most information about 5 clinical areas of the external quality assurance (§ 137 SGB V). Regarding the remaining 26 clinical areas, the TK Klinikführer, the Barmer Krankenhausnavi, and the Weisse Liste provide the largest amount of quality information. Qualitätskliniken.de reports on 9, the Klinikführer Rheinland on 8, the Bremer Krankenhausspiegel on 4, and the Hamburger Krankenhausspiegel on 2 additional clinical areas. Conclusions: This study shows that a differentiated view for each clinical area is necessary when searching for information about the quality of hospitals. Further studies should assess the quality of the report cards as well as the information that they display., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

The World Wide Web has grown during the last years to a considerable source of medical information for experts as well as for laymen and patients. The quality of this information is subjected to some limitation linked with the structure of the Internet and the management of Internet pages. The cross- sectional study presented evaluates and compares quality and reliability of information with respect of osteosarcoma in the most common German-language Internet pages for medical information. As both, one of the most common primary malignant bone tumors and its peak of incidence at the age of childhood and youth, osteosarcoma is considered of significant importance in orthopedic oncology.

Patients with little knowledge of the German language have a special need for information. Due to language barriers they behave more passively in medical encounter, have a poorer knowledge about their disease and are generally less satisfied with their medical care. Foreign language patient information material could bridge the gap between medical consultation and the patients' self-responsibility and involve patients more actively in the treatment process. Based on extensive research in several areas (internet, clinic and practice leaflets, drug patient information leaflets) the present article illustrates that in all these areas foreign language patient information is very poorly available compared to German material. The reinforcement of the development of such material could lead to a higher involvement of immigrant patients' in the decision-making process, higher rates of patient safety and satisfaction and, overall, to a better quality of care for all patient groups in Germany., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)