RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are crucial for enhancing healthcare quality and patient outcomes. Yet, their implementation remains inconsistent across various professions and disciplines. Previous findings on the implementation of the German guideline for schizophrenia (2019) revealed low adherence rates among healthcare professionals. Barriers to guideline adherence are multifaceted, influenced by individual, contextual, and guideline-related factors. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a digital guideline version compared to print/PDF formats in enhancing guideline adherence. METHODS: A multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in South Bavaria, Germany, involving psychologists and physicians. Participants were divided into two groups: implementation of the guideline using a digital online version via the MAGICapp platform and the other using the traditional print/PDF version. The study included a baseline assessment and a post-intervention assessment following a 6-month intervention phase. The primary outcome was guideline knowledge, which was assessed using a guideline knowledge questionnaire. RESULTS: The study included 217 participants at baseline and 120 at post-intervention. Both groups showed significant improvements in guideline knowledge; however, no notable difference was found between both study groups regarding guideline knowledge at either time points. At baseline, 43.6% in the control group (CG) and 52.5% of the interventional group (IG) met the criterion. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the two groups at either time point (T0: Chi2(1) = 1.65, p = 0.199, T1: Chi2(1) = 0.34, p = 0.561). At post-intervention, both groups improved, with 58.2% in the CG and 63.5% in the IG meeting this criterion. CONCLUSIONS: While the study did not include a control group without any implementation strategy, the overall improvement in guideline knowledge following an implementation strategy, independent of the format, was confirmed. The digital guideline version, while not superior in enhancing knowledge, showed potential benefits in shared decision-making skills. However, familiarity with traditional formats and various barriers to digital application may have influenced these results. The study highlights the importance of tailored implementation strategies, especially for younger healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00028895.
Assuntos
Fidelidade a Diretrizes , Esquizofrenia , Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Adulto , Alemanha , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto/normas , Inquéritos e Questionários , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em SaúdeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of medication or psychotherapy represents a critical phase in treatment. The aim of the work is to systematically analyze recommendations for deprescribing medication and discontinuation of psychotherapy in the evidence- and consensus-based S3 guidelines of the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN) to identify potential research gaps. METHODS: A systematic analysis of the DGPPN S3 guidelines to investigate and compare information and recommendations on deprescribing. RESULTS: Regarding deprescribing of medication, our analysis showed that eight of the 20 included S3 guidelines contain information both in the form of recommendations and background information. Regarding psychotherapy, only two guidelines provided information on deprescribing. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the need to expand guidelines to include evidence-based recommendations for deprescribing medication or discontinuation of psychotherapy. Future research should focus on the development of specific, generic, and evidence-based guidelines that support both medical staff and patients during these critical phases of therapy.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer (LC) accounts for the largest number of cancer deaths worldwide, with smoking being the leading cause for its development. While quality of life (QoL) is a crucial factor in the treatment of patients with LC, the impact of smoking status on QoL remains unclear. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of available evidence on the relationship between smoking status and QoL among patients with LC. METHODS: A systematic search of Embase, Medline and Web of Science was conducted. Studies reporting the impact of smoking status on QoL among patients with LC were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of studies, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme appraisal tool for cohort studies. A descriptive synthesis was performed due to the heterogeneity of the studies. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies met the inclusion criteria (17 studies providing cross-sectional and 6 longitudinal data). The studies included a total of 10 251 participants. The results suggested a tendency towards lower QoL among smokers compared with non-smokers. The effect of smoking cessation on QoL was insufficiently investigated in the included studies and therefore remains inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review suggest that current smokers may experience worse QoL than former and never smokers. The results of this systematic review should, however, be viewed in the context of the difficulty of data collection in this patient group given the low survival rates and low performance status, among other factors and in light of the large variety of different QoL measures used. Future research requires uniform QoL measures, a holistic representation of all patients with LC as well as a comprehensive consideration of all potential determinants of QoL. The potential benefits of smoking cessation on QoL among patients with LC require investigation.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Pulmonares , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar , Humanos , Fumar/epidemiologia , Qualidade de Vida , Estudos Transversais , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar/métodosRESUMO
The COVID-19 pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges for health care workers (HCWs) worldwide. While the adverse effects of the pandemic on the well-being of HCWs in general have now been established, little is known about the impact on HCWs of psychiatric hospitals (PHCWs). PHCWs are of special interest, given that they faced both an increase in infection rates among psychiatric patients as well as in mental strain of the general public due to consequences of the pandemic. The aim of the present study was to investigate how the pandemic affected PHCWs as well as possible differences between PHCWs and other health care workers (OHCWs) in Germany during the first wave of the pandemic. We conducted a country-wide anonymous online survey early during the first pandemic wave between April 15th and May 1st, 2020, to assess different aspects of subjective burden and perceived stress using 5-point Likert-scale questions. We analysed data of 1530 PHCWs and 2114 OHCWs and showed that PHCWs reported higher subjective burden and stress compared to OHCWs (p<0.001). Overall, nurses from both groups of HCWs showed higher ratings in subjective burden and stress than physicians. These higher ratings for subjective burden were even more pronounced for nurses working in psychiatric hospitals. Future research is needed to investigate the causes for PHCWs' increased stress and subjective burden, especially when taking into account the long-term effects of the pandemic, which may lead to further challenges and an ever-increasing workload, especially for PHCWs.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos , Humanos , Pandemias , Pessoal de Saúde , Alemanha/epidemiologiaRESUMO
This study aims to investigate the barriers and facilitators to guideline adherence for the print format of the German schizophrenia guideline as well as for the concept of a digital living guideline for the first time. For this purpose, the schizophrenia guideline was transferred to a digital guideline format within the web-based tool MAGICapp. An online survey was performed under participation of mental healthcare professionals (medical doctors, psychologists/psychotherapists, psychosocial therapists, caregivers) in 17 hospitals for psychiatry in Southern Germany and a professional association for German neurologists and psychiatrists. 524 participants opened the survey, 439 completed the demographic questions and commenced the content-related survey and 309 provided complete data sets. Results indicate a higher occurrence of knowledge-related barriers for the living guideline. The print version is associated with more attitude-related and external barriers. Older professionals reported more attitude-related barriers to a living guideline compared to younger professionals. Differences between professions regarding barriers were found for both formats. Various barriers exist for both guideline formats and a need for facilitators was expressed across professions. Many of the mentioned obstacles and facilitators can be more easily addressed with living guidelines. However, also living guidelines face barriers. Thus, the introduction of these new formats alone cannot lead to sustainable behavior change regarding guideline adherence. Yet, living guidelines seem to be a cornerstone to improved and tailored guideline implementation as they facilitate to keep recommendations up to date and to address the need of individual professional groups.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To support healthcare workers (HCWs) during the increased burden caused by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, numerous recommendations for action and possible interventions have been developed. However, the actual protective factors, needs and desires of those affected, as well as potential barriers to implementing psychological interventions, have been insufficiently examined. This study addresses this research gap and captures HCWs' experiences and views. METHODS: Medical personnel including nursing staff and physicians were recruited for a qualitative study regarding protective factors as well as barriers to the implementation of support services. We conducted 21 individual, semi-structured interviews with members of the medical staff at tertiary care center in Germany. The collected data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The analyses showed that social interaction in the professional and private context was rated as helpful in coping with the challenges of everyday work amplified by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The results also suggest that the available support services, despite being highly valued, were rarely accessed. Possible barriers included the fear of negative consequences when asking for support. It could be deduced that the fear and shame of admitting one's own mistakes as well as the work-related tradition of showing no weakness could be the underlying factors for this fear. RESULTS: The results of this study suggest that medical staff need a more extensive range of low-threshold support services, which should be adapted to the respective needs of the professional groups. The study also provides indications that the norms and expectations represented in the hospital system require critical reflection.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Saúde Mental , Pessoal de Saúde/psicologiaRESUMO
Chemsex is described as the use of certain drugs-commonly methamphetamine, gamma-butyrolactone (GBL)/gammahydroxybutyrate (GHB), and mephedrone-before or during planned sexual activity primarily among men who have sex with men (MSM). Evidence shows that MSM who engage in chemsex are at increased risk of physical harm, such as sexually transmittable infections (STIs), and are more likely to experience mental health symptoms. To further assess this, we reviewed the recent literature to evaluate whether the psychological impact of chemsex behavior includes suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts. Pubmed/MEDLINE was searched for articles reporting suicidal ideation and behavior among chemsex users with the terms "chemsex", "sexualized drug use", "suicide", and "mental health". Twelve articles (three case reports and nine cross-sectional studies) were included in the final narrative review. Overall, we retrieved mixed results regarding the relationship between chemsex practice and suicidality outcomes. Considering the inhomogeneous nature of the studies, the findings indicate that suicidality could be an issue of concern among MSM in general but among chemsex users in particular. Possible risk factors for suicidality among chemsex participants may include adversities experienced due to one's sexual orientation and an increased risk for HIV and other STI infections and the resulting negative impact on mental well-being. These aspects warrant further investigations.
RESUMO
The implementation status of clinical guidelines is, despite their important role in connecting research with practice, frequently not satisfactory. This study aims to investigate the implementation status of the current German guideline for schizophrenia. Moreover, the attitude toward a living guideline has been explored for the first time by presenting screenshots of the German schizophrenia guideline transferred to a digital living guideline format called MAGICapp. A cross-sectional online survey was performed under the participation of 17 hospitals for psychiatry and psychosomatic medicine in Southern Germany and one professional association for German neurologists and psychiatrists. 439 participants supplied sufficient data for analysis. 309 provided complete data sets. Regarding the current guideline for schizophrenia and key recommendations, a large awareness-to-adherence gap was found. Group comparisons between different professions (caregivers, medical doctors, psychologists/psychotherapists, psychosocial therapists) detected differences in the implementation status showing higher awareness and agreement with the schizophrenia guideline and its key recommendations among medical doctors compared to psychosocial therapists and caregivers. Moreover, we detected differences in the implementation status of the guideline as a whole and its key recommendations between specialist and assistant doctors. The attitude toward an upcoming living guideline was mostly positive, especially among younger healthcare professionals. Our findings confirm an awareness-to-adherence gap, not only for the current schizophrenia guideline in general but also for its key recommendations with apparent differences between professions. Overall, our results show promising positive attitudes toward the living guideline for schizophrenia among healthcare providers, suggesting that a living guideline may be a supportive tool in everyday clinical practice.
Assuntos
Psiquiatria , Esquizofrenia , Humanos , Esquizofrenia/diagnóstico , Esquizofrenia/terapia , Estudos Transversais , Alemanha , AtitudeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite high acceptance rates in the field, the implementation of the 2019 published German evidence and consensus-based S3 guideline is unsatisfactory. This study aims to assess the superiority of an adaptive online version with a better visualization of the recommendations in terms of guideline conformity, application of shared decision making, and digital health expertise compared to the classic pdf print version of the guideline. METHODS: The study is a multicenter, controlled, cluster-randomized trial with two arms: one arm investigating the implementation of the German schizophrenia guideline in form of a digital format (intervention group using the evidence ecosystem MAGICapp), the other arm in form of the classic print pdf version (control group). Physicians and psychologists working in specialized hospitals will be included in the study. The guideline-knowledge before and after the intervention is defined as primary outcome measure. Secondary endpoints include digital health expertise and application of shared decision making. DISCUSSION: This is the first study evaluating if an adaptive-digital version of the schizophrenia guideline is superior to the classic pdf print version. Therefore, the guideline is digitally prepared in the evidence-ecosystem MAGICapp, which covers the whole process of the development of a living guideline. We intend to use the results of the cluster-randomized trial for developing the German S3 guideline for schizophrenia in form of a living guideline in future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered (10 May 2022) in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) under registration number DRKS00028895 .
Assuntos
Esquizofrenia , Ecossistema , Fidelidade a Diretrizes , Humanos , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Esquizofrenia/tratamento farmacológico , Esquizofrenia/terapiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The goal of living guidelines is keeping recommendations in guidelines up-to-date as new evidence becomes available. This review aims at scoping the prevalence and formal characteristics of living guidelines in the field of medicine and explore differences between formats. METHODS: A selective search of living guidelines in MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar and six relevant online repositories for guidelines (MAGICApp, AWMF, GIN, NICE, WHO-Iris, BIGG) was conducted. Authors and editors were contacted to receive previous non-living guideline versions. Living guidelines were subsequently analyzed according to pre-defined methodological criteria as described below (inter-comparison). Differences between living and their conventional (non-living) versions were assessed (intra-comparison). RESULTS: 83 living guidelines were identified and selected for further screening, out of which 26 were eligible for analysis. 61.5% were new publications (de-novo guidelines) and 38.5% updates of pre-existing guidelines. There are some concepts defining, for example, the update cycle (AWMF, maximum of 12 months) but not all living guidelines follow or refer to existing concepts. The analysis shows that living guidelines in line with the established standards for (non-living) clinical guidelines involve an evidence standard, an extensive consensus process (often in the form of a Delphi process), and the inclusion of stakeholders (patients/relatives) in the development process, despite the high frequency of updates. When comparing living and conventional guidelines with the descriptive approach changes were found in update frequency (being more frequent with living guidelines, annually at the latest) and publication format (towards more digital) and public consultation (living guidelines offered more possibilities), no substantial methodological differences were observed in the description of consensus processes, changes in number of recommendations, inclusion of patient representatives. Given the small number of comparable pairs, the results reflect a tendency in the analyzed sample. CONCLUSIONS: The definition and development of living guidelines varied. Standardization (i. e. in the form of a checklist, procedure template) is needed to assess quality of the living process.
Assuntos
Lista de Checagem , Humanos , Alemanha , MEDLINE , ConsensoRESUMO
The COVID-19 pandemic has posed an unprecedented demand and a huge burden for healthcare workers (HCWs) worldwide, with alarming reports of heightened mental health problems. To counteract these mental health challenges, guidelines and recommendations for the support of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic have been published. With this scoping review and guideline evaluation, we aim to provide a critical overview of these guidelines and recommendations and to guide policy makers in establishing respective surveillance and care programs. In summary, 41 articles were included in this review which were published between April 2020 and May 2021. Across all articles, the guidelines and recommendations could be clustered into four main categories: "Social/structural support," "Work environment," "Communication/Information," "Mental health support." Although there was substantial agreement across articles about the recommendations given, empirical evidence on the effectiveness of these recommendations is still lacking. Moreover, most recommendations were developed without involving different members of the target group (HCWs) or other involved stakeholders. Strategies to detect potential barriers and to implement these guidelines in clinical practice are lacking.