Search

Background: Though evidence on the detrimental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in nursing homes is vast, research focusing on general practitioners' (GP) care during the pandemic in nursing homes is still scarce. Methods: A retrospective online survey among 1,010 nursing home managers in Germany was conducted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between November 2020 and February 2021. Associations between perceived deficits in GP care (routine and acute visits) and both general and COVID-19-related characteristics of nursing homes were analysed using multiple logistic regression analyses. Results: The majority of nursing home managers reported no deficits in GP care (routine visits, 84.3%; acute visits, 92.9%). Logistic regression analyses revealed that deficits in GP care (routine visits) were significantly associated with visiting restrictions for GPs and nursing home size. Small nursing homes (1–50 residents) were significantly more likely to report deficits in GP care (routine visits) compared to medium (51–100 residents) and large nursing homes (> 100 residents). Further, deficits in GP care (acute visits) were significantly associated with dementia as a focus of care and the burden of insufficient testing for SARS-CoV-2 among residents. Moreover, visiting restrictions for GPs were significantly associated with dementia as the focus of care and the COVID-19 incidence at the federal state level. Finally, COVID-19 cases in nursing homes were significantly associated with size of nursing homes, COVID-19-incidence on the federal state level and the burden of insufficient testing capacities for SARS-CoV-2 among residents. Conclusion: We found structural factors associated with GP care deficits during the pandemic. New concepts for GP care should be implemented in pandemic preparedness plans to ensure high quality, consistent, and reliable GP care as well as effective infection prevention measures in nursing homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interactions in the healthcare system today involve an important new set of actors: evaluative health platforms (EHPs). These platforms are not neutral intermediaries, but active moderators of how patients express opinions, choose providers, and consume health-related information. This paper adds to our understanding of the varied and evolving commercial interests of EHPs and the implications these have for patient voice. We analyze 71 platforms in the USA, UK, and Germany and identify five ideal types: subscribers, analyzers, advertisers, regulators, and scammers. Each platform type enacts a unique competitive strategy through an evaluative infrastructure which constrains but also generates possibilities for patient voice. Based on our typology, we develop three contributions. First, we nuance universalizing claims about the consequences of platform capitalism by specifying the diverse strategies underpinning competition between EHPs in different countries, and showing how each strategy leads evaluative infrastructures to develop in ways that impact patient voice. Second, we show how patients can navigate the challenges of a complex EHP space by exercising their ability to choose between platforms. Finally, we outline the conditions platforms need to fulfil to become empowering. Overall, this study highlights the varied and complex relationship between platform business models and user voice, which exists not only in healthcare, but also in many other fields. • Typology of evaluative health platforms (EHPs) in the US, the UK, and Germany. • EHP business models and content moderation techniques vary considerably. • EHPs have a wide range of implications for patient voice. • More transparency and competition can help platforms increase patient empowerment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Overall, 55% of the German population suffers from primary episodic headaches according to recent studies. Inadequate management of headache disorders is a significant medical problem. The prevalence of medication overuse headache (MOH) is about 1% with an estimated number of 800,000 people in Germany. Medication overuse (MO) and MOH are usually managed through a complex process of medication withdrawal and initiating of prophylaxis. However, patients who were successfully treated for MO or MOH have a high relapse rate in the following 2 years. Previously, continued monitoring of self-reported medication intake demonstrated lower relapse rates. The prevalence and burden of MO and MOH are high, and effective strategies to prevent the development of a relapse into MOH or de novo MOH are still missing. Therefore, the MOH trial was designed to assess the effects of combining self-reported medication intake with daily monitoring of the entered data and a personalized patient-specific medication intake feedback system in an easy-accessible app-based platform in order to prevent the development and relapse of MO(H).Methods: The MOH trial is a randomized, controlled, parallel, multicenter, prospective trial. A total of 624 migraine patients with frequent migraine attacks and 336 patients who underwent treatment for MO(H) will be randomly allocated to use either a customized app with or without individual feedback regarding their self-reported medication intake for 12 months. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients developing MO or MOH for at least 3 consecutive months between baseline and end of study visits.Discussion: This trial will assess the effects of providing patients with feedback regarding their self-reported use of migraine medications and migraine days using a mobile software on the development or prevention of MO(H). We hypothesize that the development of MO(H) in patients with frequent episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) and relapse after treatment of MO(H) can be reduced by a feedback system. If this trial proves that using an app with specific and unspecific messaging to the patient is successful, this method, which is now investigated mainly in specialized headache centers, could later be extended to primary care, thus providing benefits for a broader patient group.Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00025961 . Registered on 04 August 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]