Search

Introduction: Opioids are one of the most important and effective drug classes in pain medicine with a key role in most medical fields. The increase of opioid prescription over time has led to higher numbers of prescription opioid misuse, abuse and opioid-related deaths in most developed OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries around the world. Whilst reliable data on the prevalence of opioid treatment is accessible for many countries, data on Germany specifically is still scarce. Considering Germany being the largest country in the European Union, the lack of evidence-based strategies from long-term studies is crucial. The aim of this work is to review and summarise relevant published literature on the prevalence of opioid prescription in Germany to adequately inform health policy strategies. Methods: A systematic review of the epidemiology of opioid prescription in Germany was conducted, searching PubMed and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria were defined prior to conducting the search. Literature concerning Germany, published in English and German was included and the search was replicated by three independent researchers. Two levels of screening were employed. Disagreement was resolved by face-to-face discussion, leading to a consensus judgement. Results: Our electronic search yielded 735 articles. Reviewing titles and abstracts yielded 19 relevant articles. Three authors examined each article’s full text more closely and determined that twelve papers should be included. Of the twelve identified studies—with publication dates ranging from 1985 to 2016—six were retrospective cross-sectional studies and six were retrospective repeated-measures cross-sectional studies. Sample sizes ranged from 92,842 to ≈ 11,000,000 participants. Data sources of included studies showed vast heterogeneity. The reviewed literature suggested an increase in the number of patients with opioid prescriptions and defined daily doses of opioids per recipient in Germany over time. The majority of opioid prescriptions was used for patients with non-cancer pain. Opioid use was more common in older people, women and in the north of Germany. Fentanyl was shown to be the most prescribed strong opioid in outpatient settings in Germany, despite not being the first-line choice for chronic pain conditions. All data published before 2000—but none of the more recent studies—suggested an insufficient treatment of pain using opioids. There were no signs for a current opioid epidemic in Germany. Conclusions: Despite some limitations of the review and the heterogeneity of studies, it can be stated that the number of opioid prescriptions overall as well as the number of people receiving opioid treatment have increased over time. Most prescriptions were found to be for strong opioids and patients with non-cancer pain. Even though patterns of opioid prescription follow trends observed in other developed countries, there are no signs of an opioid epidemic in Germany. Therefore, this review could currently not find a need for urgent health policy interventions regarding opioid prescription practices. However, critical gaps in the literature remain and more research is needed to make more reliable judgements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with life-limiting conditions and a history of migration, a higher risk of not dying at home and limited access to palliative care services has been reported. Aim: To explore the views and end-of-life preferences of patients with a migration history in Germany and to identify migration specific themes. Design: Two-armed study using Kaufmann’s ‘understanding interview’ (‘focused interview’) method and grounded theory approach. Thematic content analysis was applied using MaxQDA 12 software. Setting/Participants: Migrant and non-migrant adult patients with far advanced, life-limiting disease receiving palliative care in different specialist level settings (specialist home palliative care, palliative care inpatient unit, inpatient hospice). Results: The 37 interviewees (19 native Germans and 18 patients from Europe and the U.S., Israel, Turkey, and Indonesia) expressed eleven themes covering health care- and patient-related issues, of which four emerged to be specific for migrants: worse survival in home country; the perception of an altered identity and ‘not belonging’; language skills as prerequisite to survive; and longing for ‘home’ while being attached to Germany. From these categories, three overarching themes were derived: (1) a limited understanding of the concept of ‘palliative care’; (2) the suppression of end of life discussions for its association with suffering and loss of autonomy; and (3) the significance of complex individual migration histories. Conclusions: Based on these findings, the concept of a ‘double home’ experience is proposed. Barriers to access to palliative care should be minimized for all patients while cultural stereotyping has to be avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Lung function depends nonlinearly on age and height, so that the use of age and height specific reference values is required. The widely used age and height specific GLI (Global Lung Initiative) z-scores derived from cross-sectional data, however, have not been proven for validity in an elderly population or for longitudinal data. Therefore, we aimed to test their validity in a population of elderly women followed prospectively for more than 20 years. Methods: We used spirometric data (forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) and FEV1/FVC) from the SALIA cohort of German women (baseline: 1985–1994 (aged 55 years), follow-up: 2008/2009 and 2012/2013). We calculated GLI-z-scores for baseline and follow-up examination separately (cross-sectional evaluation) and individual differences in z-scores between baseline and follow-up (longitudinal evaluation) for healthy never-smoking women. Results: GLI reference values for FEV1, FVC and FEV1/FVC were cross-sectionally and longitudinally equivalent with our SALIA data. The mean change in z-scores between baseline and follow-up was 0.33 for FEV1, 0.38 for FVC and -0.10 for FEV1/FVC. Conclusions: In conclusion, GLI z-scores fit cross-sectionally and longitudinally with FEV1, FVC and FEV1/FVC measured in women from Germany which indicates that they can be used in longitudinal association analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Socially disadvantaged people have an increased need for medical care due to a higher burden of health problems and chronic diseases. In Germany, outpatient care is chiefly provided by office-based general practitioners and specialists in private practice. People are free to choose the physician they prefer. In this study, national data were used to examine differences in the use of outpatient medical care by socioeconomic status (SES). Methods: The analyses were based on data from 6,754 participants in the Robert Koch Institute’s German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1) aged between 18 and 69 years. The number of outpatient physician visits during the past twelve months was assessed for several medical specializations. SES was determined based on education, occupation, and income. Associations between SES and physician visits were analysed using logistic regression and zero-truncated negative binomial regression for count data. Results: After adjusting for sociodemographic factors and health indicators, outpatients with low SES had more contacts with general practitioners than outpatients with high SES (men: incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08–1.46; women: IRR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.07–1.34). The use of specialists was lower in people with low SES than in those with high SES when sociodemographic factors and health indicators were adjusted for (men: odds ratio [OR] = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.51–0.91; women: OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.41–0.77). This applied particularly to specialists in internal medicine, dermatology, and gynaecology. The associations remained after additional adjustment for the type of health insurance and the regional density of office-based physicians. Conclusion: The findings suggest that socially disadvantaged people are seen by general practitioners more often than the socially better-off, who are more likely to visit a medical specialist. These differences may be due to differences in patient preferences, physician factors, physician-patient interaction, and potential barriers to accessing specialist care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]