Search

Copyright of Der Urologe A is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Langenbecks Archiv fuer Chirurgie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives: The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process., Study Design and Setting: Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists. This is a German translation of the original paper published in English., Results: We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings., Conclusion: The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Background: The characterization of subtypes of chronic pain patients based on their pain coping profiles may contribute to a better understanding of the pain syndrome, to more specific indications of established treatment options as well as to further development of therapeutic interventions., Objective: The aim of this study was to examine whether different subgroups of chronic pain patients emerge when using the German pain coping questionnaire (FESV) to identify homogeneous subgroups of pain coping patterns. Furthermore, the aim was to examine whether these pain coping subgroups differ in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, as well as pain and treatment-related aspects., Material and Methods: A total of 166 inpatients with a chronic pain disorder according to ICD-10 F45.41 were examined as part of the routine assessment within an interdisciplinary pain treatment program. Cognitive and behavioral pain coping and pain-related psychological impairment were measured with the FESV as components of pain coping. Using cluster analyses, homogeneous patient subgroups were generated on the basis of pain coping data. The resulting subgroups were subsequently compared regarding sociodemographic characteristics, pain-related impairment, global psychological distress, depression, anxiety, perceived stress, utilization of social support and motivation for psychotherapy., Results and Conclusion: The results revealed three distinct subgroups regarding pain coping patterns: (1) high impairment and high coping, (2) low impairment and high coping and (3) high impairment and low coping. The subgroups differed significantly in almost all characteristics, except for pain duration and pain intensity. The categorization into the abovementioned pain coping subtypes may assist clinicians in tailoring pain treatment to the needs and characteristics of the individual patients.