Search

Hintergrund/Fragestellung: Ausgangslage für das Pilotprojekt waren die wenig zufriedenstellenden Ergebnisse zur Qualität von Gesundheitsinformationen (GI) aus dem MEDIB-Projekt [ref:1] und die niedrige Gesundheitskompetenz der österreichischen Bevölkerung laut dem [zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL]

Introduction: Health information is a prerequisite of informed decision-making. Criteria for development, content and presentation have recently been published in a corresponding guideline. Within a systematic search, 27 relevant checklists were identified, none of them, however, complying with the guideline or providing reasonably operationalised measurement items. Therefore, a draft of a checklist with 19 criteria was drafted. The current study aims at developing and validating this measure of quality. Methods and analysis: The validation design consists of five single studies to be conducted at the University of Halle-Wittenberg/Germany and Graz/Austria. (1) Achieving content validity through expert reviews of the first draft, (2) achieving feasibility using ‘think aloud’ in piloting with untrained users, (3) pretesting the instrument applied to health information materials without use of secondary sources: determining inter-rater reliability and criterion validity, (4) determining construct validity using information on proceedings and methods in the development process provided by the developers and (5) determining divergent validity in comparison with the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQUIP) (expanded) Scale. The substudies will use varying samples of experts, students and developers and will apply the instrument to materials of various domains. Sample sizes will be adjusted to the particular research designs and questions. Analyses will employ qualitative methods, such as content analyses and discourse within the expert panel, and correlation-based methods both for determining inter-rater reliability and validity. Ethics and dissemination: The project is approved by the ethics committee of the Martin Luther University HalleWittenberg (approval number: 2019 115). Results will be published, and the instrument made accessible on public health platforms. It is meant to become a certification standard. MAPPinfo can be used as a screening instrument without training or secondary sources. Although developed in the German language, the instrument will be applicable also in other languages. Financial support reveived from the Open Access Publication Fund of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg. The project was planned and initiated without any funding. However, it is now and on basis of the study protocol supported by funding from the German Foundation “Stiftung Gesundheitswissen”, an organisation in the not-for-profit sector.

Hintergrund/Fragestellung: Die Reproduzierbarkeit evidenzbasierter nicht-medikamentöser Maßnahmen scheint aufgrund mangelhafter Deskription in Studien erschwert [ref:1]. Um die Verordnung evidenzbasierter Empfehlungen zu steigern, initiierte das Royal Australian College of General[zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL], Nützliche patientenrelevante Forschung; 21. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin

Additional file 2: Table S1. Demographic characteristics of the participating GPs.

Additional file 1: Questionnaire.

Hintergrund/Fragestellung: Das aktuell laufende Projekt EVI (Evidenzbasierte Informationen zur Unterstützung von gesundheitskompetenten Entscheidungen) hat zum Ziel der steirischen Bevölkerung gesundheitskompetente Entscheidungen zu ermöglichen, indem evidenzbasierte, qualitativ [zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL], EbM und Digitale Transformation in der Medizin; 20. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin

Hintergrund/Fragestellung: Im Rahmen des Projektes EVI (Evidenzbasierte Informationen zur Unterstützung von gesundheitskompetenten Entscheidungen) [ref:1] werden bereits vorhandene hochwertige Gesundheitsinformationen gesammelt, bewertet und Hausärztinnen/Hausärzten[zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL], EbM und Digitale Transformation in der Medizin; 20. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin

Zielsetzung: Der Einsatz von Informationsbroschüren (IB) in der hausärztlichen Praxis ist etabliert. Unklar ist jedoch, inwieweit vorhandene Informationsbroschüren den Kriterien für gute Gesundheitsinformationen bzw. Entscheidungshilfen genügen. Sowohl in den Rahmengesundheitszielen[zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL], Klasse statt Masse – wider die wertlose Wissenschaft; 18. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin

OBJECTIVES: Identification of sufficiently trustworthy top 5 list recommendations from the US Choosing Wisely campaign. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: All top 5 list recommendations available from the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation website. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/INTERVENTIONS: Compilation of US top 5 lists and search for current German highly trustworthy (S3) guidelines. Extraction of guideline recommendations, including grade of recommendation (GoR), for suggestions comparable to top 5 list recommendations. For recommendations without guideline equivalents, the methodological quality of the top 5 list development process was assessed using criteria similar to that used to judge guidelines, and relevant meta-literature was identified in cited references. Judgement of sufficient trustworthiness of top 5 list recommendations was based either on an 'A' GoR of guideline equivalents or on high methodological quality and citation of relevant meta-literature. RESULTS: 412 top 5 list recommendations were identified. For 75 (18%), equivalents were found in current German S3 guidelines. 44 of these recommendations were associated with an 'A' GoR, or a strong recommendation based on strong evidence, and 26 had a 'B' or a 'C' GoR. No GoR was provided for 5 recommendations. 337 recommendations had no equivalent in the German S3 guidelines. The methodological quality of the development process was high and relevant meta-literature was cited for 87 top 5 list recommendations. For a further 36, either the methodological quality was high without any meta-literature citations or meta-literature citations existed but the methodological quality was lacking. For the remaining 214 recommendations, either the methodological quality was lacking and no literature was cited or the methodological quality was generally unsatisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: 131 of current US top 5 list recommendations were found to be sufficiently trustworthy. For a substantial number of current US top 5 list recommendations, their trustworthiness remains unclear. Methodological requirements for developing top 5 lists are recommended.

Hintergrund und Fragestellung: Oft ist bei Kindern für schmerzhafte Interventionen bzw. Untersuchungen eine kurzzeitige Sedierung notwendig. Ein in der Anästhesie verbreitet eingesetzter Wirkstoff ist Propofol. Er weist eine rasche Wirkung und kurze Eliminationshalbwertzeit auf und ist mit[zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL], Gemeinsam informiert entscheiden; 17. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin