Search

Introduction: Women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with women who never had GDM. Consequently, the question of structured aftercare for GDM has emerged. In all probability, many women do not receive care according to the guidelines. In particular, the process and interaction between obstetrical, diabetic, gynaecological, paediatric and general practitioner care lacks clear definitions. Thus, our first goal is to analyse the current aftercare situation for women with GDM in Germany, for example, the participation rate in aftercare diabetes screening, as well as reasons and attitudes stated by healthcare providers to offer these services and by patients to participate (or not). Second, we want to develop an appropriate, effective and patient-centred care model., Methods and Analysis: This is a population-based mixed methods study using both quantitative and qualitative research approaches. In various working packages, we evaluate data of the GestDiab register, of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians of North Rhine and the participating insurance companies (AOK Rheinland/Hamburg, BARMER, DAK Gesundheit, IKK classic, pronova BKK). In addition, quantitative (postal surveys) and qualitative (interviews) surveys will be conducted with randomly selected healthcare providers (diabetologists, gynaecologists, paediatricians and midwives) and affected women, to be subsequently analysed. All results will then be jointly examined and evaluated., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf (Ethics Committee No.: 2019-738). Participants of the postal surveys and interviews will be informed in detail about the study and the use of data as well as the underlying data protection regulations before voluntarily participating. The study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and public information., Trial Registration Number: DRKS00020283., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objective: Unemployment is related to poverty and is a risk factor for poor health. The present study investigates if unemployment increases the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization for men and women of working age in Germany., Methods: The study uses the health insurance data from AOK Rhineland/Hamburg (from 1 January 2020 until 18 June 2020) of 1,288,745 persons aged between 18 and 65. Four employment situations are distinguished: (1) regular employment, (2) low-wage employment with social support, (3) unemployment with receipt of unemployment benefit 1, and (4) long-term unemployment with receipt of unemployment benefit 2. COVID-19 hospitalizations are measured on the basis of the ICD codes U07.1 and U07.2 reported by the hospitals. Multiple logistic regression models are calculated (adjusted for age and sex)., Results: During the observation period, 1521 persons had hospitalization with COVID-19 as primary or secondary diagnosis. Overall, this corresponds to a rate of 118 cases per 100,000 insured persons. Rates varied by employment situation. Compared with regularly employed persons, the odds ratio for a hospitalization was 1.94 (CI 95%: 1.74-2.15) for long-term unemployment, 1.29 (0.86-1.94) for unemployed, and 1.33 (0.98-1.82) for low-wage employment., Conclusion: The results are in line with earlier studies from the USA and Great Britain reporting socioeconomic inequalities in COVID-19 hospitalization risk. This provides the first empirical support that socioeconomic inequalities in the severity of COVID-19 also exists in Germany.

Introduction: The concentration of treatment on a few hospitals is discussed to improve the outcome of care. For the treatment of the breast cancer the distributional effects are evaluated., Method: A systematic literature search in Medline identified six studies dealing with the evidence on the relation between outcome and workload. Using administrative data of a sickness fund in the region of Rhineland, Germany, the number of hospitals and patients affected by minimum work-loads was determined., Results: Study results show that in general a minimum workload of 100 to 150 new diagnosed cases per year and hospital is recommended. These recommendations would lead to 46% of the presently treating hospitals being excluded (minimum work-load of 150 cases; year 2001). If the workload is set to 100 cases, 31% of the hospitals will be excluded from breast cancer management. No significant differences could be detected in the data of the years 2000 and 2001., Discussion: The association between minimum workload and outcome of care seems to be evident. Further studies involving larger regions are needed to evaluate the distributional effects and gains of outcome.