Search

This paper deals with the didactic objectives and content from the latest curricula of the different types of schools (schools, colleges, universities) in the D-A-CH regions. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the didactic goals of current and future curricula for primary, secondary, and high school, which are feasible with a single board computer. For this purpose, the curricula are analysed according to digital terms and methods of information technology with a qualitative deductive meta-analysis and assigned to different categories. The results are presented in different diagrams for evaluation, from which the results can be interpreted. The results include a list of digital didactic goals, structured according to school type, competencies, and feasibility, which can be implemented with a single-board computer. All in all, it was found that an inexpensive single-board computer is quite sufficient for the acquisition and implementation of the digital goals and skills to be taught in the curricula. Furthermore, it was found out how the changes in the curricula have established themselves in the different regions with a time lag and which competencies are taught at the individual school levels. The paper concludes with a recommendation for further studies.

Introduction: The web application gp-multitool.de is based on the German clinical practice guideline "multimorbidity" and supports mutual prioritisation of treatments by GPs (general practitioners) and patients. The application facilitates sending hyperlinks to standardized assessments by email, which can be completed by patients on any suitable digital device. GPs can document clinical decisions. The tool also supports a structured medication review. Aims of this study were to consider needs and wants of the target groups in implementing the "multimorbidity" clinical practice guideline in a digital tool, and to examine themes of discussions in order to identify which aspects were considered most important for customising a digital tool., Materials and Methods: We conducted six focus groups with 32 GPs and six focus groups with 33 patients. Eight groups were conducted alongside the programming of the web application and four after finishing a prototype. GPs were recruited by mail and asked to invite up to six eligible patients from their practice to participate. Focus groups were based on semi-structured interview guides and discussed assessments, functionalities, usability and reliability of gp-multitool.de. Discussions were transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis., Results: GPs wanted to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming functions and did not want to explore problems that they could not provide solutions for. For some assessments, GPs suggested simplifying scales or including residual categories. GPs and patients also addressed possible misunderstandings due to wording and discussed if some items might be too intimate or overtax patients intellectually. In most cases, participants confirmed usability, but they suggested changes in default settings and pointed out a few minor bugs that needed to be fixed. While some GPs considered data security an important topic, most patients were unconcerned with this issue and open to share their data., Conclusion: Our study indicates that focus groups can be used to customize a digital tool according to the needs and wants of target groups and thus, improve content, functionality, usability, and reliability of digital tools. However, digital tools still need to be piloted and evaluated in everyday care. In our focus groups, study participants confirmed that gp-multitool.de can be a relevant approach for overcoming deficits in the information needed for mutual prioritisation of treatments by GPs and patients., Competing Interests: MS, DL and IS are co-authors of the clinical practice guideline “multimorbidity” of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin. The remaining 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. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (© 2025 Schäfer, Jahns, Paucke, Lühmann, Scherer and Nothacker.)

Background: As a result of climate change, exposure to high temperatures is becoming more common, even in countries with temperate climates. For patients with chronic diseases, heat poses significant health risks. Empowering patients is a crucial element in protecting the population from the adverse effects of heat. In this context, self-reports of protective behavior are often used to gain a mutual understanding of patients' issues. However, the extent to which self-reported behavior is associated with health complaints remains unclear., Objective: This study aims to describe the association between light to moderate heat and health complaints in everyday life, and to analyze whether self-reported protective behavior and related psychosocial factors are linked to these complaints., Methods: We conducted a pilot cohort study using internet climate data merged with an online survey of patients with chronic diseases recruited through general practitioner practices. Patients were eligible if they were 18 years or older and had at least one chronic disease. The heat was modeled using temperature and humidity data. Health complaints were assessed through up to 7 follow-up evaluations on the hottest day of each week during the observation period. Data were analyzed using 3 nested models with mixed effects multivariable linear regression, adjusting for random effects at the climate measuring station and participant levels. Model 1 included heat exposure, sociodemographic data, and chronic diseases. Model 2 added protective behavior and health literacy, while model 3 incorporated self-efficacy and somatosensory amplification (ie, the tendency to catastrophize normal bodily sensations such as insect bites)., Results: Of the 291 eligible patients, 61 (21.0%) participated in the study, providing 294 observations. On average, participants were 61 (SD 14) years old, and 31 (51%) were men. The most prevalent conditions were cardiovascular diseases (n=23, 38%) and diabetes mellitus (n=20, 33%). The most commonly reported symptoms were tiredness/fatigue (232/294 observations, 78.9%) and shortness of breath (142/294 observations, 48.3%). Compared with temperatures of 27°C or lower, a heat index between over 27°C and 32°C (β=1.02, 95% CI 0.08-1.96, P=.03) and over 32°C (β=1.35, 95% CI 0.35-2.35, P=.008) were associated with a higher symptom burden. Lower health literacy (β=-0.25, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.01, P=.04) and better self-reported protective behavior (β=0.65, 95% CI 0.29-1.00, P<.001) were also linked to increased symptom burden but lost statistical significance in model 3. Instead, lower self-efficacy (β=-0.39, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.23, P<.001) and higher somatosensory amplification (β=0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.28, P=.001) were associated with a higher symptom burden., Conclusions: Compared with colder weather, light and moderate heat were associated with more severe health complaints. Symptom burden was lower in participants with higher self-efficacy and less somatosensory amplification. Self-reported protective behavior was not linked to a lower symptom burden. Instead, we found that patients who tended to catastrophize normal bodily sensations reported both better protective behavior and a higher symptom burden simultaneously., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05961163; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05961163., (©Arne Jordan, Julia Nothacker, Valentina Paucke, Klaus Heinz Hager, Susann Hueber, Arian Karimzadeh, Thomas Kötter, Christin Löffler, Beate Sigrid Müller, Daniel Tajdar, Dagmar Lühmann, Martin Scherer, Ingmar Schäfer. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 04.11.2024.)

Objectives: Numerous systematic reviews (SRs) have been published in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic and clinical trials were designed rapidly highlighting the importance of informative implications for research (IfRs) sections in SRs. IfR is one item of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 checklist and the Cochrane Handbook suggests considering population, intervention, control, outcome (PICO) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) domains when developing IfR. We aimed (1) to assess whether SRs on COVID-19 treatments included any IfR statements and, for SRs with an IfR statement, (2) to examine which elements informed the IfR statement., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a metaresearch study based on SRs on COVID-19 treatment identified in the Living OVerview of the Evidence COVID-19 database in May 2021 as part of another research project (CRD42021240423). We defined an IfR statement as at least one sentence that contained at least one bit of information that could be informative for planning future research. We extracted any IfR statements anywhere in the SRs on predefined IfR variables, in particular PICO elements, study design, and concepts underlying GRADE domains. Three authors extracted data independently after piloting the data extraction form. We resolved discrepancies in weekly discussions to ensure a high-quality data extraction., Results: We included 326 SRs, of which 284 SRs (87.1%) stated IfR. Of these 284 SRs, 201 (70.8%) reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and 66 (23.2%) using GRADE. IfR statements (n = 284) addressing PICO were unstructured and commonly reported 'population' (n = 195, 68.7%), 'intervention' (n = 242, 85.2%), and 'outcome' (n = 127, 44.7%) but not 'control' (n = 29, 10.2%). Concepts underlying GRADE domains were infrequently reported in IfR statements of SRs (n = 284): 'risk of bias' (n = 14, 4.9%), 'imprecision' (n = 8, 2.8%), 'inconsistency' (n = 7, 2.5%), 'publication bias' (n = 3, 1.1%), and 'indirectness' (n = 1, 0.4%). Additional IfR elements mentioned in IfR were 'better reporting' of future studies (n = 17, 6.0%) and 'standardization of procedures in clinical trials' (n = 12, 4.2%)., Conclusion: Almost 90% of SRs on COVID-19 treatments reported IfR. IfR statements addressing PICO were unstructured across SRs and concepts underlying GRADE were rarely reported to inform IfR. Further work is needed to assess generalizability beyond COVID-19 and to define more precisely which IfR elements should be considered, and how they should be reported in SRs of interventions. Until then, considering PICO elements and concepts underlying GRADE to derive IfR seems to be a sensible starting point., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study is to describe (1) registered and (2) published systematic reviews (SRs) on COVID-19 treatments, and to analyze (3) the proportion of publications among registered SRs and (4) the proportion of registrations among published SRs., Study Design and Setting: This meta-research study (CRD42021240423) is part of CEOsys (http://www.covid-evidenz.de/). Two reviewers identified protocols in PROSPERO (registered January 2020 to September 2020) and SRs published as preprint or peer-reviewed article in L·OVE (Living OVerview of the Evidence) COVID-19 (by May 2021). SRs of all types assessing COVID-19 treatments in humans were included., Results: We included 239 PROSPERO protocols and 346 SRs published in L·OVE. In both samples, the affiliation of the corresponding author with an Asian institution, standard SR as review type, and meta-analysis as synthesis method were the most frequent characteristics. Living SRs made up ≤10%. A total of 71 of 239 (29.7%) PROSPERO protocols were published as SR by February 2022, that is, after at least 17 months of follow-up (25 of 71 as preprints, 35.2%). In L·OVE, 261 of 346 (75.4%) SRs published by May 2021 were not registered in PROSPERO., Conclusion: Overall, one-third PROSPERO protocols were published and three-fourth published SRs were not registered. We strongly encourage authors to register and publish their SRs promptly to reduce research waste and to allocate resources efficiently during the pandemic and beyond., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To provide insights into women's attitudes towards a human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening strategy., Data Sources: Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched for published and ongoing studies (last search conducted in August 2021)., Methods of Study Selection: The search identified 3162 references. Qualitative and quantitative studies dealing with women's attitudes towards, and acceptance of, an HPV-based cervical cancer screening strategy in Western healthcare systems were included. For data analysis, thematic analysis was used and synthesised findings were presented descriptively., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Twelve studies (including 9928 women) from USA, Canada, UK and Australia met the inclusion criteria. Women's attitudes towards HPV-based screening strategies were mainly affected by the understanding of (i) the personal risk of an HPV infection, (ii) the implication of a positive finding and (iii) the overall screening purpose. Women who considered their personal risk of HPV to be low and women who feared negative implications of a positive finding were more likely to express negative attitudes, whereas positive attitudes were particularly expressed by women understanding the screening purpose. Overall acceptance of an HPV-based screening strategy ranged between 13% and 84%., Conclusion: This systematic review provides insights into the attitudes towards HPV-based cervical cancer screening and its acceptability based on studies conducted with women from USA, Canada, UK and Australia. This knowledge is essential for the development of education and information strategies to support the implementation of HPV-based cervical cancer screening., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020178957)., 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.)

Objective: We investigated characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) assessing measures to prevent COVID-19 by (1) identifying SR registrations in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), (2) identifying published SRs in COVID-19 Living Overview of the Evidence (L-OVE) and (3) estimating the proportion of PROSPERO registrations published as full SR between 8 and 16 months after registration., Study Design: This meta-research study is part of the German CEOsys project, www.covid-evidenz.de. We searched PROSPERO entries registered between 1 January 2020 and 31 August 2020, and we searched COVID-19 L-OVE for published SRs (search date: 5 May 2021) focusing on measures to prevent COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The two samples were screened for eligibility and key characteristics were extracted and summarised., Results: Of 612 PROSPERO registrations, 47 focused on prevention and were included. The preventive measures included public health interventions (20), followed by personal protective equipment (10), vaccinations (9) and others (8). In total, 13 of 47 (28%) PROSPERO registrations had been published as full SR (as preprint only (6), as peer-reviewed article only (6), as preprint and peer-reviewed article (1)). Median time between PROSPERO registration and publication was 5 months for peer-reviewed SRs and 2 months for preprints.Of the 2182 entries identified in COVID-19 L-OVE, 51 published SRs focused on prevention and were included. Similar to the PROSPERO sample, most published SRs focused on public health interventions (21). The number of included primary studies ranged between 0 and 64 (median: 7). Nine published SRs did not include any studies because of a lack of primary studies., Conclusion: Considering the urgent information needs of policymakers and the public, our findings reveal the high-speed publication of preprints and lack of primary studies in the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. Further meta-research on COVID-19 SRs is important to improve research efficiency among researchers across the world., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021240423., 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.)

The healthcare burden of patients with multimorbidity may negatively affect their family lives, leisure time and professional activities. This mixed methods systematic review synthesizes studies to assess how multimorbidity affects the everyday lives of middle-aged persons, and identifies skills and resources that may help them overcome that burden. Two independent reviewers screened title/abstracts/full texts in seven databases, extracted data and used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to assess risk of bias (RoB). We synthesized findings from 44 studies (49,519 patients) narratively and, where possible, quantitatively. Over half the studies provided insufficient information to assess representativeness or response bias. Two studies assessed global functioning, 15 examined physical functioning, 18 psychosocial functioning and 28 work functioning. Nineteen studies explored skills and resources that help people cope with multimorbidity. Middle-aged persons with multimorbidity have greater impairment in global, physical and psychosocial functioning, as well as lower employment rates and work productivity, than those without. Certain skills and resources help them cope with their everyday lives. To provide holistic and dynamic health care plans that meet the needs of middle-aged persons, health professionals need greater understanding of the experience of coping with multimorbidity and the associated healthcare burden.

Introduction: Multimorbidity is the simultaneous occurrence of several (chronic) diseases. Persons living with multimorbidity not only have complex care needs, but the burden of care often has a negative impact on their family lives, leisure time and professional activities. The aim of this project is to systematically review the literature to assess how multimorbidity affects the everyday lives of middle-aged persons, and to find out what abilities and resources help in the development of coping strategies to overcome the challenges of living with it., Methods and Analysis: We will systematically search for studies reporting on the everyday life experiences of middle-aged persons (30-60 years) with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions) in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index Expanded, PSYNDEX and The Cochrane Library from inception. We will include all primary studies that use quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies, irrespective of publication date/study setting.Two independent reviewers will screen titles/abstracts/full texts, extract data from the selected studies and present evidence in terms of study/population characteristics, data collection method and the phenomenon of interest, that is, everyday life experiences of middle-aged persons with multimorbidity. Risk of bias will be independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We will use a convergent integrated approach on qualitative/quantitative studies, whereby information will be synthesised narratively and, if possible, quantitatively., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not required due to the nature of the proposed systematic review. Results from this research will be disseminated at relevant (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021226699., 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.)

Unpredictable disease trajectories make early clarification of end-of-life (EoL) care preferences in older patients with multimorbidity advisable. This mixed methods systematic review synthesizes studies and assesses such preferences. Two independent reviewers screened title/abstracts/full texts in seven databases, extracted data and used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess risk of bias (RoB). We synthesized findings from 22 studies (3243 patients) narratively and, where possible, quantitatively. Nineteen studies assessed willingness to receive life-sustaining treatments (LSTs), six, the preferred place of care, and eight, preferences regarding shared decision-making processes. When unspecified, 21% of patients in four studies preferred any LST option. In three studies, fewer patients chose LST when faced with death and deteriorating health, and more when treatment promised life extension. In 13 studies, 67% and 48% of patients respectively were willing to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation, but willingness decreased with deteriorating health. Further, 52% of patients from three studies wished to die at home. Seven studies showed that unless incapacitated, most patients prefer to decide on their EoL care themselves. High non-response rates meant RoB was high in most studies. Knowledge of EoL care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity increases the chance such care will be provided.

Introduction: End-of-life care is an essential task performed by most healthcare providers and often involves decision-making about how and where patients want to receive care. To provide decision support to healthcare professionals and patients in this difficult situation, we will systematically review a knowledge cluster of the end-of-life care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity that we previously identified using an evidence map., Methods and Analysis: We will systematically search for studies reporting end-of-life care preferences of older patients (mean age ≥60) with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions) in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index Expanded, PSYNDEX and The Cochrane Library from inception to September 2019. We will include all primary studies that use quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies, irrespective of publication date and language.Two independent reviewers will assess eligibility, extract data and describe evidence in terms of study/population characteristics, preference assessment method and end-of-life care elements that matter to patients (eg, life-sustaining treatments). Risk of bias/applicability of results will be independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Using a convergent integrated approach on qualitative/quantitative studies, we will synthesise information narratively and, wherever possible, quantitatively., Ethics and Dissemination: Due to the nature of the proposed systematic review, ethics approval is not required. Results from our research will be disseminated at relevant (inter-)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals. Synthesising evidence on end-of-life care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity will improve shared decision-making and satisfaction in this final period of life., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020151862., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To systematically identify knowledge clusters and research gaps in the health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity by mapping current evidence., Design: Evidence map (systematic review variant)., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL and Science Citation Index/Social Science Citation Index/-Expanded from inception to April 2018., Study Selection: Studies reporting primary research on health-related preferences of older patients (mean age ≥60 years) with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic/acute conditions)., Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and clustered the studies using MAXQDA-18 content analysis software., Results: The 152 included studies (62% from North America, 28% from Europe) comprised 57 093 patients overall (range 9-9105). All used an observational design except for one interventional study: 63 (41%) were qualitative (59 cross-sectional, 4 longitudinal), 85 (57%) quantitative (63 cross-sectional, 22 longitudinal) and 3 (2%) used mixed methods. The setting was specialised care in 85 (56%) and primary care in 54 (36%) studies. We identified seven clusters of studies on preferences: end-of-life care (n=51, 34%), self-management (n=34, 22%), treatment (n=32, 21%), involvement in shared decision making (n=25, 17%), health outcome prioritisation/goal setting (n=19, 13%), healthcare service (n=12, 8%) and screening/diagnostic testing (n=1, 1%). Terminology (eg, preferences, views and perspectives) and concepts (eg, trade-offs, decision regret, goal setting) used to describe health-related preferences varied substantially between studies., Conclusion: Our study provides the first evidence map on the preferences of older patients with multimorbidity. Included studies were mostly conducted in developed countries and covered a broad range of issues. Evidence on patient preferences concerning decision-making on screening and diagnostic testing was scarce. Differences in employed terminology, decision-making components and concepts, as well as the sparsity of intervention studies, are challenges for future research into evidence-based decision support seeking to elicit the preferences of older patients with multimorbidity and help them construct preferences., Trial Registration Number: Open Science Framework (OSF): DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/MCRWQ., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Interaction of conditions and treatments, complicated care needs and substantial treatment burden make patient-physician encounters involving multimorbid older patients highly complex. To optimally integrate patients' preferences, define and prioritise realistic treatment goals and individualise care, a patient-centred approach is recommended. However, the preferences of older patients, who are especially vulnerable and frequently multimorbid, have not been systematically investigated with regard to their health status. The purpose of this evidence map is to explore current research addressing health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity, and to identify the knowledge clusters and research gaps., Methods and Analysis: To identify relevant research, we will conduct searches in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL, Social Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index Expanded and the Cochrane library from their inception. We will check reference lists of relevant articles and carry out cited reference research (forward citation tracking). Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, check full texts for eligibility and extract the data. Any disagreement will be resolved and consensus reached with the help of a third reviewer. We will include both qualitative and quantitative studies, and address preferences from the patients' perspectives in a multimorbid population of 60 years or older. There will be no restrictions on the publication language. Data extraction tables will present study and patient characteristics, aim of study, methods used to identify preferences and outcomes (ie, type of preferences). We will summarise the data using tables and figures (ie, bubble plot) to present the research landscape and to describe clusters and gaps., Ethics and Dissemination: Due to the nature of the proposed evidence map, ethics approval will not be required. Results from our research will be disseminated by means of specifically prepared materials for patients, at relevant (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)