Search

Additional file 1. Interview Guide for Patients.

Additional file 2. Summary of the Key Themes.

Additional file 1.

Additional file 1. SPIRIT checklist of the UCC trial.docx

Additional file 2. Overview of the optimization measures that were considered as helpful for data analysis. The complexity factors identified as relevant for patients, thus leading to the proposal of optimization measures, and a description of the optimization measures suggested by the tool are given.

Additional file 3. English confirmation ethics approval UCC trial.pdf

Additional file 1. Histograms that show the distribution of the number of complexity factors and the number of drugs among all three study groups.

Additional file 1: Supplementary Figure 1. Study Design & participant numbers of the ARena trial.

Additional file 2. SPIRIT figure of the UCC trial.docx

Additional file 4. Translation of the original funding documentation.pdf

Additional file 1. Guide for focus groups.

Additional file 2: Supplementary Table 1. Survey items (T2) included for scores of participant views (N = 184). Supplementary Table 2. Indicators reflecting fidelity to the ARena program (N = 290 physicians). Supplementary Table 3. Number of quarters with claimed P4P reimbursements (N = 195 practices). Supplementary Table 4. Scores of domains reflecting participant views (T2) (N = 184 physicians). Supplementary Table 5. Multilevel logistic regression model clustered by practice affiliation regarding use of the bonus payment component (N = 184 physicians). Supplementary Table 6. Multilevel multiple linear regression model clustered by practice affiliation regarding attendance to QC themes (N = 184).

Additional file 3. Guide for interviews with practice staff.

Additional file 2. Guide for interviews with other stakeholders.

Additional file 2.

Additional file 3.

Additional file 2. Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist.

Additional file 1.

Additional file 2. Indicator assessment questions (example).

Additional file 2: Table S6. Recommended Antibiotics for Otitis Media. Table S7. Logistics mixed effects model for the rate of recommended antibiotics for patients with Otitis Media and antibiotics prescription for practices participating in ARena. The practices are considered as random effect. Documented are odds ratios (OR), corresponding confidence interval (CI) limits, standard errors, and p-value. Table S8. Recommended Antibiotics for Tonsillitis. Table S9. Logistics mixed effects model for the rate of recommended antibiotics for patients with Tonsillitis and antibiotics prescription for practices participating in ARena. The practices are considered as random effect. Documented are odds ratios (OR), corresponding confidence interval (CI) limits, standard errors, and p-value. Table S10. Recommended Antibiotics Sinusitis. Table S11. Logistics mixed effects model for the rate of recommended antibiotics for patients with Sinusitis and antibiotics prescription. The practices are considered as random effect. Documented are odds ratios (OR), corresponding confidence interval (CI) limits, standard errors, and p-value. Table S12. Recommended Antibiotics Bronchitis. Table S13. Logistics mixed effects model for the rate of recommended antibiotics for patients with Bronchitis and antibiotics prescription. The practices are considered as random effect. Documented are odds ratios (OR), corresponding confidence interval (CI) limits, standard errors, and p-value. Table S14. Recommended Antibiotics Upper Respiratory Infections. Patient and health status characteristics for patients suffering from upper respiratory infection with antibiotics prescription. Table S15. Logistics mixed effects model for the rate of recommended antibiotics for patients with Upper Respiratory Infections and antibiotics prescription. The practices are considered as random effect. Documented are odds ratios (OR), the corresponding confidence interval (CI) limits, standard errors, and p-value. Table S16. Quinolones. Table S17. Broad-spectrum antibiotics. Table S18. Primary and secondary outcomes contrasted for gender. Table S19. Primary and secondary outcomes contrasted for DMP. Table 20. Primary and secondary outcomes contrasted for Charlson Index.

Additional file 1: Table S1. Diagnoses Primary Outcome. Table S2. Excluded Diagnoses. Table S3. Recommended Antibiotics. Table S4. Diagnoses for Quinolone Prescription. Table S5. Distribution of medical specialty per infection treated with antibiotics.

Additional file 3. Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.

Additional file 1 Table S1. List of ICD 10-GM Codes Used to Identify Hospitalizations for Ambulatory Care–Sensitive Conditions.

Additional file 2: Table S1: Results of the reliability analysis. Table S2 to S6: Items of the different scores and frequency of answers per setting.

Additional file 1

Additional file 1. Focus group and interview guide for General Practitioners and Psychotherapists. Evaluation of reorganization of mental healthcare in Germany (ES-RiP).

Additional file 1. MEDLINE search strings for literature review.

Additional file 1.

Additional file 2. Questionnaire for peer-assessed-students.

Additional file 1. Questionnaire for peer assessors.

Additional file 1. The additional material includes the documentation of the systematic searches (Tables 1-2), detailed information on the included papers (Table 3), the results of the quality assessment of all included papers (Table 4) as well as an overview of the results for each included paper (Tables 5–29).

In addition to the Robert Koch Institute’s health surveys, analyses of secondary data are essential to successfully developing a regular and comprehensive description of the progression of diabetes as part of the Robert Koch Institute’s diabetes surveillance. Mainly, this is due to the large sample size and the fact that secondary data are routinely collected, which allows for highly stratified analyses in short time intervals. The fragmented availability of data means that various sources of secondary data are required in order to provide data for the indicators in the four fields of action for diabetes surveillance. Thus, a milestone in the project was to check the suitability of different data sources for their usability and to carry out analyses. Against this backdrop, co-operation projects were specifically funded in the context of diabetes surveillance. This article presents the results that were achieved in co-operation projects between 2016 and 2018 that focused on a range of topics: from evaluating the usability of secondary data to statistically modelling the development of epidemiological indices. Moreover, based on the data of the around 70 million people covered by statutory health insurance, an initial estimate was calculated for the documented prevalence of type 2 diabetes for the years 2010 and 2011. To comparably integrate these prevalences over the years in diabetes surveillance, a reference definition was established with external expertise.

Interview guide for third interview after delivery. (DOCX 19 kb)

Yield of screening and number needed to screen. Yield of screening for active TB per 1000 screened individuals and number needed to screen to detect 1 case of TB with 95% credible intervals, stratified by age group, sex, year of screening, and asylum seekersâ country of origin. (PDF 77 kb)

Contains fulltext : 215644.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) INTRODUCTION: Hospital stays are critical events as they often disrupt continuity of care. This process evaluation aims to describe and explore the implementation of the VESPEERA programme (Improving continuity of patient care across sectors: An admission and discharge model in general practices and hospitals, Versorgungskontinuitaet sichern: Patientenorientiertes Einweisungs- und Entlassmanagement in Hausarztpraxen und Krankenhauesern). The evaluation concerns the intervention fidelity, reach in targeted populations, perceived effects, working mechanisms, feasibility, determinants for implementation, including contextual factors, and associations with the outcomes evaluation. The aim of the VESPEERA programme is the development, implementation and evaluation of a structured admission and discharge programme in general practices and hospitals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The process evaluation is linked to the VESPEERA outcomes evaluation, which has a quasi-experimental multi-centre design with four study arms and is conducted in hospitals and general practices in Germany. The VESPEERA programme comprises several components: an assessment before admission, an admission letter, a telephonic discharge conversation between hospital and general practice before discharge, discharge information for patients, structured planning of follow-up care after discharge in the general practice and a telephone monitoring for patients with a risk of rehospitalisation. The process evaluation has a mixed-methods design, incorporating interviews (patients, both care providers who do and do not participate in the VESPEERA programme, total n=75), questionnaires (patients and care providers who participate in the VESPEERA programme, total n=475), implementation plans of hospitals, data documented in general practices, claims-based data and hospital process data. Data analysis is descriptive and explorative. Qualitative data will be transcribed and analysed using framework analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Associations between the outcomes of the program and measures in the process evaluation will be explored in regression models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained by the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty Heidelberg prior to the start of the study (S-352/2018). Results will be disseminated through a final report to the funding agency, articles in peer-reviewed journals and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.drks.de/DRKS00015183. TRIAL STATUS: The study protocol on hand is the protocol V.1.1 from 18 June 2018. Recruitment for interviews started on 3 September 2018 and will approximately be completed by the end of May 2019.

Background The overuse of antibiotics is a major cause for the worldwide rise of antibiotic resistance. Although it is well known that acute respiratory tract infections (ARTI) are mainly caused by viruses and are often self limiting, antibiotics are too frequently prescribed in primary care. CHANGE-3 examines whether a complex intervention focusing on improving communication and provision of prescribing feedback reduces antibiotic use in patients suffering from ARTI. Methods/design The CHANGE-3 trial is a cluster-randomized controlled trial nested within a web-based public campaign conducted in two regions in Germany. A total of 114 medical practices will be included. Practices randomized to the intervention will receive a practice-specific antibiotic-prescription feedback and an educational outreach visit. During the visit the whole practice team will receive an introduction to e-learning modules addressing patient-centered communication on antibiotics. Furthermore, the practices will receive tablet PCs with information on antibiotics and the treatment of ARTI to be presented to patients. Practices randomized to the control will provide care as usual. The primary outcome measure is the antibiotic prescribing rate for patients with a history of ARTI. Data collected before the intervention, during the intervention and after the intervention will be compared. The use of narrow- vs. broad-spectrum antibiotics will be analyzed as a secondary outcome. A process evaluation is also part of the trial. Discussion This study should contribute to the growing body of research on reducing antibiotic prescription. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN15061174. Registered retrospectively on 13 July 2018. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3209-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SPIRIT checklist: recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol. (DOCX 64 kb)

Table S1. Questionnaire on the sociodemographic data of the medical students. Table S2. Manual for semi-standardized interviews with the medical students. Table S3. Nine-item questionnaire to evaluate the medical studentsâ experiences in PHV. (DOCX 29 kb)

Interview Guide for first interview during pregnancy. (DOCX 19 kb)

Technical appendix. Technical appendix containing additional details related to methods, data sources, and analysis. (PDF 542 kb)

Interview guide for the second interview during pregnancy. (DOCX 19 kb)

Intervention description according to Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) [30]. (DOCX 96 kb)

Period averaged incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000) and 95% confidence intervals reported by WHO, 1990–2014. Overview of period averaged incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000) and 95% confidence intervals reported by WHO (1990–2014) based on own calculations for countries used in this study. (PDF 113 kb)

Background Despite large numbers of asylum seekers, there is a lack of evidence on pregnancy outcomes and obstetric care of asylum seeking women in Germany. Methods Cross-sectional study (2010–2016) using administrative data of the main referral hospital for pregnant asylum seekers of the reception center of a large federal state in South Germany. Inclusion criteria: women aged 12–50 years, admitted in relation to pregnancy, childbirth or post-partum complications. Outcomes: differences between asylum seekers and residents in the prevalence of high-risk pregnancy conditions, abortive outcomes/stillbirths, peri- and postnatal maternal complications, neonatal complications, and caesarean sections. Analysis: odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) obtained by single and multiple logistic regression analysis. Attributable fractions among the exposed (Afe) and among the total population (Afp) were calculated for selected outcomes. Results Of 19,864 women admitted in relation to pregnancy, childbirth or post-partum complications, 2.9% (n = 569) were asylum seekers. Adjusted odds for high-risk pregnancy conditions (OR = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.63–0.91, p

Absolute frequency and prevalence (per 100,000) of pregnancy outcomes and caesarean sections by age group and residence status, N = 19,864 women. (PDF 77 kb)

Interview Guideline. (PDF 75 kb)

Regression coefficients and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for multivariate logistic regression models. (PDF 96 kb)

Intervention description according to TIDieR. (PDF 432Â kb)

Pacicplus. The original PACIC+ questionnaire. (PDF 110 kb)

Subthemes. (PDF 190 kb)