Search

Our study was carried out as part of updating the I Potentially inappropriate medications list in the elderly i in Germany (henceforth termed "the PRISCUS list").[1] This included a three-round Delphi process to derive the list of PIMs. Our aim was to investigate the process of providing information and the importance of different sources of information in the context of developing a PIM list. Altogether, 187 substances were classed as PIM.[4] We conducted a closed follow-up survey of all experts who took part in the assessment of PIM for the update of the PRISCUS list. [Extracted from the article]

The objective was to assess the changes in quality of life (QoL) and patient satisfaction of chronically ill patients in general practices in Salzburg (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy) after implementation of a combined intervention addressing quality of care of general practitioners (GPs). Furthermore, the correlation between QoL/patient satisfaction and quality of care provided by the GPs (measured by a quality score based on quality indicators [QIs]) was investigated. The non‐controlled pre–post study involved GPs and patients with chronic conditions. The intervention consisted of self‐audit, benchmarking and quality circles. QIs were extracted in the participating practices in 2012 (preintervention) and 2014 (postintervention). Before and after the intervention, a patient survey was conducted including EQ‐5D (measuring health‐related QoL), a patient participation scale and parts of the European Task Force on Patient Evaluations of General Practice questionnaire (measuring patient satisfaction). Mann–Whitney U‐tests, chi‐square tests and Spearman's rank correlation were applied for statistical analysis. Fifty‐six GPs participated in the study. 1,710 patients returned the questionnaire in 2012, and 1,374 in 2014. Mean EQ‐5D index (QoL) was similar in Salzburg and South Tyrol in both years: 2012 Salzburg 0.85 (95% CI 0.84–0.87), South Tyrol 0.85 (95% CI 0.84–0.86); 2014 Salzburg 0.84 (95% CI 0.83–0.86), South Tyrol 0.84 (95% CI 0.83–0.86). Patient satisfaction was higher in Salzburg than in South Tyrol at baseline (EUROPEP: mean percentage of best response 61.5% vs. 49.1%, p < 0.000) and also at follow‐up (61.9% vs. 49.2%; p < 0.000). No significant correlation between quality score and QoL/patient satisfaction was detected. Thus, the impact of the intervention was not significant within the intermediate time periods analysed in the study. Improvements in quality of care do not necessarily also improve patient‐relevant outcomes, which are probably more associated with other factors than with medical quality (e.g. availability of the GP, waiting times and communication‐related issues). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the current study is to perform model calculations on the possible use of SARSCoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests as mass tests, using the quality criteria extracted from evidence-based research as an example for the Federal Republic of Germany. In addition to illustrating the problem of false positive test results, these calculations are used to examine their possible influence on the 7-day incidence. For a substantial period of time, this parameter formed the decisive basis for decisions on measures to protect the population in the wake of the COVID pandemic, which were taken by the government. Primarily, model calculations were performed for a base model of 1,000,000 SARS-CoV- 2-rapid point-of-care tests per week using various sensitivities and specificities reported in the literature, followed by sequential testing of the test positives obtained by a SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Furthermore, a calculation was performed for an actual maximum model based on self-test contingents by the German Federal Ministry of Health. Assuming a number of 1,000,000 tests per week at a prevalence of 0.5%, a high number of false positive test results, a low positive predictive value, a high negative predictive value, and an increase in the 7-day incidence due to the additional antigen rapid tests of approx. 5/100,000 were obtained. A previous maximum calculation based on contingent numbers for self-tests given by the German Federal Ministry of Health even showed an additional possible influence on the 7-day incidence of 84.6/100,000. The model calculations refer in each case to representative population samples that would have to be drawn if the successive results were comparable which should be given, as far-reaching actions were based on this parameter. The additionally performed SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests increase the 7-day incidence in a clear way depending on the number of tests and clearly show their dependence on the respective number of tests. SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests as well as the SARS-CoV-2-PCR test method should both be used exclusively in the presence of corresponding respiratory symptoms and not in symptom-free persons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Germany and the European Union have experienced successive waves of refugees since 2014, resulting in over 1.6 million arrivals, including families with young children. These vulnerable populations often face xenophobia, discrimination, substandard living conditions and limited healthcare access, contributing to a high prevalence of mental health problems (MHP). Our primary goal is to proactively address MHP in refugee parents and prevent its potential impact on their children through effective early interventions. Using a low-threshold, primary care-based approach, we aim to enhance parenting skills and address parental psychopathology, creating a supportive environment for parents and children., Methods and Analysis: In this randomised controlled trial, 188 refugee parents of 6-year-old children or younger who meet the clinical cut-off on the MHP scale will participate. They are randomly assigned to either the experimental psychotherapeutic intervention, delivered by general practitioners (10-week Improve intervention), or treatment as usual, in a ratio of 1:1. The randomisation will be masked only for outcome assessors. Improve includes face-to-face sessions with general practitioners, an interactive online parenting programme (Triple P Online) and regular protocol-based telephone calls by psychologists. Primary outcomes will assess the intervention's effects on parental and child MHP and parenting skills, with secondary outcomes including psychosocial and physical health indicators. Outcomes will be assessed at pre, post and at 3-month and 6-month follow-ups. The study is scheduled to run from February 2019 to July 2025., Ethics and Dissemination: The project Improve-MH (application number 602) was approved by the local ethics committee of Ruhr-University of Bochum and is being conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study is also conducted in full accordance with the German Data Protection Act, and the Good Clinical Practice guideline (GCP) and is sensitive to specific ethical considerations. Results will be disseminated at scientific conferences, published in peer-reviewed journals and provided to consumers of healthcare., Trial Registration Number: The trial was prospectively registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS-ID: DRKS00019072) on 16 March 2020., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The aim of the current study is to perform model calculations on the possible use of SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests as mass tests, using the quality criteria extracted from evidence-based research as an example for the Federal Republic of Germany. In addition to illustrating the problem of false positive test results, these calculations are used to examine their possible influence on the 7-day incidence. For a substantial period of time, this parameter formed the decisive basis for decisions on measures to protect the population in the wake of the COVID pandemic, which were taken by the government. Primarily, model calculations were performed for a base model of 1,000,000 SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests per week using various sensitivities and specificities reported in the literature, followed by sequential testing of the test positives obtained by a SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Furthermore, a calculation was performed for an actual maximum model based on self-test contingents by the German Federal Ministry of Health. Assuming a number of 1,000,000 tests per week at a prevalence of 0.5%, a high number of false positive test results, a low positive predictive value, a high negative predictive value, and an increase in the 7-day incidence due to the additional antigen rapid tests of approx. 5/100,000 were obtained. A previous maximum calculation based on contingent numbers for self-tests given by the German Federal Ministry of Health even showed an additional possible influence on the 7-day incidence of 84.6/100,000. The model calculations refer in each case to representative population samples that would have to be drawn if the successive results were comparable which should be given, as far-reaching actions were based on this parameter. The additionally performed SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests increase the 7-day incidence in a clear way depending on the number of tests and clearly show their dependence on the respective number of tests. SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests as well as the SARS-CoV-2-PCR test method should both be used exclusively in the presence of corresponding respiratory symptoms and not in symptom-free persons., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (© 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press.)