User profiles in digitalized healthcare: active, potential, and rejecting - a cross-sectional study using latent class analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence of different use by different groups of people for general health-related applications. Yet, these findings are lacking for digitalized healthcare services. It is also unclear whether typical use patterns can be found and how user types can be characterized. METHODS: The analyses are based on data from 1 821 respondents to the Health Related Beliefs and Health Care Experiences in Germany panel (HeReCa). Digitalized healthcare services, that were used to determine the user types, include for example sick notes before/after examination and disease related training. User types were determined by latent class analysis. Individual groups were characterized using multinomial logistic regressions, taking into account socioeconomic and demographic factors as well as individual attitudes towards digitalization in the healthcare system. RESULTS: Three types were identified: rejecting (27.9%), potential (53.8%) and active (18.3%). Active participants were less likely to be employed, less likely to be highly educated and less skeptical of digital technologies. Potential users were the youngest, most highly-educated and most frequently employed group, with less skepticism than those who rejected. Rejecters were the oldest group, more likely to be female and of higher socio-economic status. CONCLUSIONS: Socio-demographic and socio-economic differences were identified among three user types. It can therefore be assumed that not all population groups will benefit from the trend towards digitalization in healthcare. Steps should be taken to enhance access to innovations and ensure that everyone benefits from them.

Is artificial intelligence for medical professionals serving the patients? : Protocol for a systematic review on patient-relevant benefits and harms of algorithmic decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) utilises algorithms to collect and process data and develop models to make or support decisions. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the development of support systems that can be superior to medical professionals without AI support in certain tasks. However, whether patients can benefit from this remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the current evidence on patient-relevant benefits and harms, such as improved survival rates and reduced treatment-related complications, when healthcare professionals use ADM systems (developed using or working with AI) compared to healthcare professionals without AI-related ADM (standard care)-regardless of the clinical issues. METHODS: Following the PRISMA statement, MEDLINE and PubMed (via PubMed), Embase (via Elsevier) and IEEE Xplore will be searched using English free text terms in title/abstract, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and Embase Subject Headings (Emtree fields). Additional studies will be identified by contacting authors of included studies and through reference lists of included studies. Grey literature searches will be conducted in Google Scholar. Risk of bias will be assessed by using Cochrane's RoB 2 for randomised trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomised trials. Transparent reporting of the included studies will be assessed using the CONSORT-AI extension statement. Two researchers will screen, assess and extract from the studies independently, with a third in case of conflicts that cannot be resolved by discussion. DISCUSSION: It is expected that there will be a substantial shortage of suitable studies that compare healthcare professionals with and without ADM systems concerning patient-relevant endpoints. This can be attributed to the prioritisation of technical quality criteria and, in some cases, clinical parameters over patient-relevant endpoints in the development of study designs. Furthermore, it is anticipated that a significant portion of the identified studies will exhibit relatively poor methodological quality and provide only limited generalisable results. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This study is registered within PROSPERO (CRD42023412156).

[Subjective Health Impairment And Associated Factors In The Heatwave Of Summer 2022: An Online Survey]. / Subjektive gesundheitliche Beeinträchtigung und assoziierende Faktoren in der Hitzeperiode des Sommers 2022 ­ Ein Online-Survey.

BACKGROUND: Heatwaves might diminish the sense of well-being and are associated with increased mortality. Individual measures to protect against heat are often insufficient, with the perception of one's own risk playing a crucial role. Due to varying levels of vulnerability, it is expected that the perception differs among populations. Presumably, symptom awareness is higher when people are concerned with and inform themselves about the topic of heat. Our study examined subjective health impairment during the heatwave in 2022, its association with socio-demographic and economic factors, as well as perceived heat stress and individual engagement with the issue. METHOD: An online survey of a population-based sample from five federal states of Germany was carried out. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to explore the relationship between subjective health impairment due to heat and potential risk indicators. RESULTS: Out of 3,111 people contacted, 1,522 responded, with 649 (20.9%) included in the analysis as they were affected by heat in their region of residence during the summer of 2022. The average subjective health impairment was 9.29 (SD: 5.25) out of 29 possible points. Higher age was associated with lower impairment; -1.36 points (95%-CI: -4.10; 1.38) in the group of those aged 80 and compared with the reference group of 60 to 69-year-old people. Furthermore, higher impairment was reported more by women and individuals with lower educational levels. Low impairment was associated with a high perceived level of information. CONCLUSION: Interventions aimed at reducing heat-related health problems should target a broader audience, particularly young people, women, individuals with lower education, and working people.

Informing pandemic management in Germany with trustworthy living evidence syntheses and guideline development: lessons learned from the COVID-19 evidence ecosystem.

OBJECTIVES: We present the 'COVID-19 evidence ecosystem' (CEOsys) as a German network to inform pandemic management and to support clinical and public health decision-making. We discuss challenges faced when organizing the ecosystem and derive lessons learned for similar networks acting during pandemics or health-related crises. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Bringing together 18 university hospitals and additional institutions, CEOsys key activities included research prioritization, conducting living systematic reviews (LSRs), supporting evidence-based (living) guidelines, knowledge translation (KT), detecting research gaps, and deriving recommendations, backed by technical infrastructure and capacity building. RESULTS: CEOsys rapidly produced 31 high-quality evidence syntheses and supported three living guidelines on COVID-19-related topics, while also developing methodological procedures. Challenges included CEOsys' late initiation in relation to the pandemic outbreak, the delayed prioritization of research questions, the continuously evolving COVID-19-related evidence, and establishing a technical infrastructure. Methodological-clinical tandems, the cooperation with national guideline groups and international collaborations were key for efficiency. CONCLUSION: CEOsys provided a proof-of-concept for a functioning evidence ecosystem at the national level. Lessons learned include that similar networks should, among others, involve methodological and clinical key stakeholders early on, aim for (inter)national collaborations, and systematically evaluate their value. We particularly call for a sustainable network.

[Advancing standards for the development of evidence-based health information for consumers: Needs and priorities among members of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine]. / Inhaltliche Weiterentwicklung von Standards zur Erstellung evidenzbasierter Gesundheitsinformationen: Eine Bedarfserhebung und Priorisierung im EbM-Netzwerk.

BACKGROUND: The Good Practice Guidelines for health information, Good Health Information Austria and Guideline Evidence-based Health Information are established resources for developing evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions. The aim of this project was to capture challenges in applying these standards in practice, identify gaps and development needs and gain insights for their further development. METHODS: In December 2020, members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine were invited to share their experiences and needs in applying German standards for evidence-based health information through an online survey focussing on open questions (part 1: needs assessment). The feedback was analysed using qualitative content analysis and presented in a workshop at the EbM Congress 2021 with the goal of specifying the feedback from the needs assessment and discussing ideas for the further development of the standards (part 2: specification). In the final step, a second survey was conducted in February 2023 to prioritize the identified topics by the working group members (part 3: prioritization). The results were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Among the 41 participants, only 23% considered the standards to be sufficient, and only 55% found their application in the development of information to be easy or rather easy. The needs assessment and workshop (n=46) helped to identify various areas of action. With regard to the application of the standards, the following challenges were identified: lack of user orientation, content gaps, methods and risk communication. Gaps in the standards were identified regarding formats, content, and the connection to healthcare provision. For the advancement of the standards ideas for additional content, stakeholder involvement, and improvement of the usability of the standards were identified. In the prioritization survey, the topic areas, "presenting benefits and harms" and "content beyond treatments (in particular, diagnostics and prognosis)" were considered to be the most important (n=36). DISCUSSION: Among members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine, a high demand has been identified for the further development of standards for creating evidence-based health information. In addition to content development, the integration of existing documents and tools should also be considered, including products issued by other institutions. The success of advancing the standards also depends on improving their applicability - for example through an attractive online platform. The results are limited by the sample which only included members of the EbM Network's patient information and participation working group and a limited response rate. CONCLUSIONS: The needs assessment showed that the currently established standards and recommendations for the development of evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions represent important cornerstones but need to be expanded to answer more practice-oriented questions. The challenges and proposed solutions stated by the participants can help further develop the standards. The prioritization can be used to set priorities for the development of the standards, guide the order of possible work packages and allocate resources.

Decision Coaching for Healthy Women With BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variants.

BACKGROUND: Women with pathogenic variants (PV) of the genes BRCA1/2 have a choice of preventive options. To help these women decide for themselves, we developed and implemented a decision coaching (DC) program and evaluated it for congruence between the participants' desired and actual roles in decision-making. METHODS: Healthy BRCA1/2 PV carriers (25-60 years of age) were recruited at six centers in Germany. Those who returned baseline (T1) questionnaires were randomly assigned to the intervention group (IG) or the control group (CG). The IG attended a nurse-led DC program. The primary outcome was congruence between the participants' preferred and actual roles in decision-making. The secondary outcomes were an active role, satisfaction, decisional conflict, and knowledge. The follow-up questionnaires were administered at 12 weeks (T2) and 6 months (T3). RESULTS: Of the 413 women who were recruited, 389 returned the T1 questionnaires. At T2, the groups did not differ significantly in congruence between their preferred and actual roles in decision-making (0.12, 95% confidence interval [-0.03; 0.28], p = 0.128), with a slightly higher congruence in the CG. Women in both groups played a more active role at T2 than their stated preference at T1, with a notably higher percentage in the IG than the CG (IG: 40%, CG: 24.4% [-25.1; -6.1]). IG participants were more satisfied with their role and had less decisional conflict and greater knowledge. CONCLUSION: This DC program can help women who are carriers of BRCA1/2 PV participate actively in decision-making with regard to preventive measures.

To Remind or Not to Remind During Recruitment? An Analysis of an Online Panel in Germany.

Objective: To explore the role of reminders in recruiting and maintaining participation in an online panel. Methods: 50,045 individuals from five German federal states were invited by regular mail to participate in the online study "Health-Related Beliefs and Healthcare Experiences in Germany." Those who did not respond to the first attempt received a postal reminder. Comparisons of sociodemographic characteristics and responses were made between first-attempt respondents and those who enrolled after the second letter. Results: After the initial letter, 2,216 (4.4%, 95%CI: 4.3%-4.6%) registered for the study; after a reminder 1,130 (2.5%, 2.3%-2.6% of those reminded) enrolled. Minor sociodemographic differences were observed between the groups and the content of the responses did not differ. Second-attempt respondents were less likely to participate in subsequent questionnaires: 67.3% of first-attempt vs. 43.3% of second-attempt respondents participated in their fourth survey. Recruitment costs were 79% higher for second-attempt respondents. Conclusion: While reminders increased the number of participants, lower cost-effectiveness and higher attrition of second-attempt respondents support the use of single invitation only for studies with a similar design to ours when the overall participation is low.

Exploring the information needs of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a content analysis of Facebook group posts.

BACKGROUND: End-stage osteoarthritis of the knee (OAK) is often treated by total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This intervention can significantly improve quality of life. However, many patients are dissatisfied with the outcome of surgery. One of the factors related to dissatisfaction is the of lack integration of patients' preferences, habits and values that are not addressed by physicians. To develop realistic expectations, affected patients need evidence-based information. Our aim was to explore the information needs of patients with OAK to support the development of decision aids and consent forms to promote informed decision-making. Additionally, we investigated whether the information needs during the Covid-19 pandemic differ from those before the pandemic. METHODS: The qualitative research design included a social media analysis of Facebook groups. Facebook groups were selected according to the following criteria: Thematic relevance, English or German language, at least one new post per week, from period before and after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020. Thematically relevant group posts were analysed according to the content-structuring content analysis of Kuckartz using MaxQDA. RESULTS: Out of 448 identified Facebook groups, we screened seven for relevant posts and a total of 77 posts out of 6 groups were selected. The following eight categories were derived during the coding process: access to health care, disease information, TKA indication and contraindication, TKA outcome and quality of life, information needs regarding conservative therapy, strain, attitude towards TKA and attitude towards conservative therapy. The analysis showed that patients with OAK need information about the benefits and risks of TKA and conservative therapies. CONCLUSION: This study provides information on the information needs of patients with OAK in order to decide between TKA or conservative therapy. Patients need information about treatment options in due consideration of their immediate living situation to be reliably able to assess potential outcomes. Such Information about TKA should enable patients to assess the individual prognosis with comprehensible and relevant outcome measures. Also, they should be formulated with the living environment of the patients in mind and be linked to possible fears and negative previous experiences with treatments.

Determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate informed values-based decision-making: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Decision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients' involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane' Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022338299.

Enhancing Transsectoral Interdisciplinary Patient-Centered Care for Patients With Rare Cancers: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Process Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Rare cancers account for approximately 24% of all new cancers. The category of rare tumor diseases includes almost 200 different entities. In particular, the treatment of patients with extensive care needs requires cooperation between service providers, both between sectors (outpatient and inpatient) and within sectors (eg, between different medical disciplines). The treatment pathway is associated with a high need for coordination and information sharing between providers. When crossing sectoral boundaries in the German health care system, interface problems between the outpatient and inpatient sectors can lead to gaps in care delivery. The multicomponent program Trans-sectoral Personalised Care Concept for Patients with Rare Cancers aims to optimize transsectoral cooperation and coordination of care to enhance patient involvement and the medical care coordination of patients with rare cancers. OBJECTIVE: This process evaluation will contribute to answering questions about intervention fidelity and the implementation of transsectoral communication, identifying and describing the intended and nonintended effects of the intervention, and exploring the barriers to and facilitators of the implementation. METHODS: We will include patients who participate in the intervention phase; all persons and staff involved in the development and implementation of the intervention (Onco Coach, psychologists, physicians on the contact platform, IT staff, and staff of the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians); physicians from the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital Munich and the hospital of the Technical University Munich who are involved in the treatment of patients during the course of the project; and participating office-based hematologists and oncologists. Data collection will be conducted at the beginning, during, and at the end of the intervention using mixed methods. Data will be collected from questionnaires, document analyses, semistructured interviews, and structured observations and will cover different aspects of process evaluation. These include examining the context to explore existing patterns, changes in patterns, attitudes, and interactions; analyzing the implementation of intervention elements; and exploring the complex causal pathways and mediators of the intervention. Qualitative data will be analyzed using thematic analysis. The data will then be combined using between-methods triangulation. RESULTS: This project received funding on March 1, 2022. The intervention phase and recruitment for the process evaluation began on March 1, 2023, and the recruitment is expected to end on September 30, 2025. At the time of protocol submission in June 2023, a total of 8 doctors from hematology and oncology practices were enrolled. Data collection began on March 14, 2023. CONCLUSIONS: The Trans-sectoral Personalised Care Concept for Patients with Rare Cancers project is a complex intervention that is to be implemented in an equally complex health care context. The process evaluation will help understand the influence of contextual factors and assess the mechanisms of change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN16441179; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16441179. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/49731.

MAPPinfo - mapping quality of health information: Validation study of an assessment instrument.

BACKGROUND: Health information is a prerequisite for informed choices-decisions, made by individuals about their own health based on knowledge and in congruence with own preferences. Criteria for development, content and design have been defined in a corresponding guideline. However, no instruments exist that provide reasonably operationalised measurement items. Therefore, we drafted the checklist, MAPPinfo, addressing the existing criteria with 19 items. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to validate MAPPinfo. METHODS: Five substudies were conducted subsequently at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany and the Medical University of Graz, Austria: (1) to determine content validity through expert reviews of the first draft, (2) to determine feasibility using 'think aloud' in piloting with untrained users, (3) to determine inter-rater reliability and criterion validity through a pretest on 50 health information materials, (4) to determine construct validity using 50 developers' self-declarations about development methods as a reference standard, (5) to determine divergent validity in comparison with the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) (expanded) Scale. The analyses used were qualitative methods and correlation-based methods for determining both inter-rater reliability and validity. RESULTS: The instrument was considered by experts to operationalise the existing guidelines convincingly. Health and nursing science students found it easy to understand and use. It also had good interrater reliability (mean of T coefficients = .79) and provided a very good estimate of the reference standard (Spearman's rho = .89), implying sound construct validity. Finally, comparison with the EQIP instrument revealed important and distinct areas of similarities and differences. CONCLUSIONS: The new instrument is ready for use as a screening instrument without the need for training. According to its underpinning concept the instrument exclusively comprises items which are justified by either ethics or research evidence, implying negligence of not yet evidence based, however, potentially important criteria. Further research is needed to complete the body of evidence-based criteria, aiming at an extension of the guideline and MAPPinfo. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: AsPredicted22546; date of registration: 24 July 2019.

Informed consent for total knee arthroplasty: exploration of patient`s information acquisition and decision-making processes-a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an option for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Patients have high expectations regarding the benefits of the actual operation. Patients can seek a second opinion on the indication for TKA. In a study, less than half of recommended TKAs were confirmed by the second opinion and conservative treatments are not fully utilized. Informed consent forms that are used in Germany usually do not meet the requirements to support informed decision-making. Our aim was to describe the process from the diagnosis of knee OA through the decision-making process to the informed consent process for TKA, and to understand when, how, and by whom decisions are made. Moreover, we wanted to describe patients' information needs and preferences about knee OA and its treatment, including TKA, and find out what information is provided. We also wanted to find out what information was important for decision-making and identify barriers and facilitators for the optimal use of evidence-based informed consent forms in practice. METHODS: We chose a qualitative approach and conducted semi-structured interviews with patients who were going to receive, have received, or have declined TKA, and with general practitioners (GP), office-based as well as orthopaedists and anaesthesiologists in clinics who obtain informed consent. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 13 patients, three GPs, four office-based orthopaedists and seven doctors in clinics who had obtained informed consent. Information needs were modelled on subjective disease theory and information conveyed by the doctors. Patients in this sample predominantly made their decisions without having received sufficient information. Trust in doctors and experiences seemed to be more relevant in this sample than fact-based information. Office-based (GPs, orthopaedists) and orthopaedists in clinics had different understandings of their roles and expectations in terms of providing information. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to identify structural barriers and assumptions that hinder the implementation of evidence-based informed consent forms.

[Pre-existing Mental Disorders and Depressiveness in the Second Wave of the SARS-CoV-2-Pandemic - The Role of Pandemic-Associated Stressors]. / Psychische Vorerkrankungen und Depressivität in der 2. Welle der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie in Deutschland ­ Die Rolle pandemieassoziierter Stressoren.

The second wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was characterized by drastic restrictions. From previous pandemics as well as from the first wave, it is known that especially individuals with a history of mental disorders may be highly vulnerable to develop poor mental health. Therefore, this paper examines the association of prior mental disorders (PMD) and depressiveness in the 2nd pandemic wave, considering general stress, perceived isolation, perception of political measures to curb the pandemic, fears regarding consequences of the pandemic and changes in the employment and income situation. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted with data of 812 participants of the health related beliefs and health care experiences in Germany study (HeReCa). The association between PMD and depressiveness was studied by means of weighted (for education and age) logistic regression, adjusted for the named variables as well as sociodemographic characteristics. Individuals with PMD displayed substantially more often higher depressiveness than individuals without PMD (OR: 25.1; 95% CI: 11.0-57.3). This association decreased partially by accounting for higher general stress and stress from isolation. Lack of partnership, low income, and male sex were associated with higher depressiveness, but only marginally changed the association of PMD and depressiveness. Overall, during the pandemic, persons with PMD were more likely to develop higher depressiveness than persons without. It is strongly advised to provide care for mental illness in pandemic times, which can be completed by E-Mental-Health or professional support for coping with stress.

Knowledge and worries on motherhood choice in multiple sclerosis - a cross-sectional study on patient-reported outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: Since multiple sclerosis (MS) is often diagnosed in young women, pregnancy is a common topic for women with MS (wwMS). The study aimed to assess the measurement properties of two patient-reported outcome measures on motherhood choice in MS, and to explore the information and support needs of wwMS concerning motherhood. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous web-based survey to validate the motherhood/pregnancy choice and worries questionnaire (MPWQ, 31 items plus up to 3 additional items) and the motherhood choice knowledge questionnaire (MCKQ, 16 items). We used mailing lists and social media for nationwide recruitment in Germany, and included women of childbearing age with relapsing-remitting MS, clinically isolated syndrome or suspected MS who were considering pregnancy or were pregnant. For the MPWQ, we assessed item difficulty, discriminatory power, and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha; CA). We analysed construct validity using the Leipzig Questionnaire of Motives to have a Child, the Decisional Conflict Scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Pregnancy-Related Anxiety Questionnaire-revised 2. We studied the structural validity using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The MCKQ was evaluated descriptively. We explored the information and support needs of wwMS on motherhood descriptively. We examined correlations between MCKQ, MPWQ and clinical characteristics and performed exploratory group comparisons considering the following binary variables: having children and being pregnant. RESULTS: 325 wwMS started the survey; 232 wwMS met our inclusion criteria and were analysed. Their mean age was 30 years (SD 5). Most women had relapsing-remitting MS (n = 218; 94%), 186 (80%) had no children, and 38 (16%) were pregnant. Internal consistency was good for the worries subscale (CA>0.8), while it was unsatisfactory for the attitude and coping subscales (CA<0.7). The EFA did not support the three-scale structure (coping, attitude, and worries). Due to these findings, we decided to keep the worries scale without any subscale. The items from the coping scale and attitude scale could be assessed as additional descriptive items. Convergent and divergent construct validity of the MPWQ was satisfactory. 206 wwMS (89%) completed the MCKQ. On average, 9 of 16 (56%) items were answered correctly (range 2-15), and the questionnaire showed a good balance between easy and difficult items. Questions on immunotherapy, disease activity, and breastfeeding were the most challenging. WwMS were confident in getting pregnant and raising a child (n = 222; 96%). Most wwMS were worried about postpartum relapses (n = 200; 86%) and the long-term effects of pregnancy on disease evolution (n = 149; 64%). About half of the wwMS (n = 124; 54%) did not know where to find professional help and 127 (55%) had no strategies to cope with future impairments so that they could take care of a child. CONCLUSION: Our results support the suitability and acceptability of both questionnaires as potential patient-reported measures for assessment of knowledge and worries around motherhood/pregnancy in MS. The survey results highlight the need for evidence-based information on motherhood in MS to increase knowledge, reduce worries and support wwMS in making informed decisions.

Locating Medical Information during an Infodemic: Information Seeking Behavior and Strategies of Health-Care Workers in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a flood of-often contradictory-evidence. HCWs had to develop strategies to locate information that supported their work. We investigated the information-seeking of different HCW groups in Germany. METHODS: In December 2020, we conducted online surveys on COVID-19 information sources, strategies, assigned trustworthiness, and barriers-and in February 2021, on COVID-19 vaccination information sources. Results were analyzed descriptively; group comparisons were performed using χ2-tests. RESULTS: For general COVID-19-related medical information (413 participants), non-physicians most often selected official websites (57%), TV (57%), and e-mail/newsletters (46%) as preferred information sources-physicians chose official websites (63%), e-mail/newsletters (56%), and professional journals (55%). Non-physician HCWs used Facebook/YouTube more frequently. The main barriers were insufficient time and access issues. Non-physicians chose abstracts (66%), videos (45%), and webinars (40%) as preferred information strategy; physicians: overviews with algorithms (66%), abstracts (62%), webinars (48%). Information seeking on COVID-19 vaccination (2700 participants) was quite similar, however, with newspapers being more often used by non-physicians (63%) vs. physician HCWs (70%). CONCLUSION: Non-physician HCWs more often consulted public information sources. Employers/institutions should ensure the supply of professional, targeted COVID-19 information for different HCW groups.

Evaluating student's ability to assess treatment claims: validating a German version of the Claim Evaluation Tools.

BACKGROUND: The Claim Evaluation Tools measure the ability to assess claims about treatment effects. The aim of this study was to adapt the German item sets to the target group of secondary school students (aged 11 to 16 years, grade 6 to 10) and to validate them accordingly. The scale's reliability and validity using Rasch's probabilistic test theory should be determined. METHODS: We conducted a sequential mixed-method study comprising three stages: contextualisation and adaption of the items (stage 1), piloting of the item sets using qualitative interviews (stage 2) and a construct validation by testing the unidimensional Rasch scalability for each item set after data collection in one secondary school in Germany and two secondary schools in Austria. We explored summary and individual fit statistics and performed a distractor analysis (stage 3). RESULTS: Secondary school students (n = 6) and their teachers (n = 5) participated in qualitative interviews in Germany. The qualitative interviews identified the need for minor modifications (e.g. reducing thematic repetitions, changing the order of the items). The data of 598 German and Austrian secondary school students were included to test for Rasch scalability. Rasch analyses showed acceptable overall model fit. Distractor analyses suggested that model fit could be improved by simplifying the text in the scenarios, removing and editing response options of some items. CONCLUSION: After the revision of some items, the questionnaires are suitable to evaluate secondary school students' ability to assess health claims. A future goal is to increase the pool of items being translated and tested.

Public information needs and preferences on COVID-19: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Right from the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic the general public faced the challenge to find reliable and understandable information in the overwhelming flood of information. To enhance informed decision-making, evidence-based information should be provided. Aim was to explore the general public's information needs and preferences on COVID-19 as well as the barriers to accessing evidence-based information. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study. Nine hundred twenty-seven panel members were invited to an online survey (12/2020-02/2021). The HeReCa-online-panel is installed at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg to assess regularly the general public's view on health issues in five regions in Germany. The survey was set up in LimeSurvey, with nine items, multiple-choice and open-ended questions that allowed to gather qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and a content analysis was carried out to categorise the qualitative data. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-six panel members provided data; mean age 52 years, 56.2% female, and 64.9% with higher education qualifications. Asked about relevant topics related to COVID-19, most participants selected vaccination (63.8%), infection control (52%), and long-term effects (47.8%). The following 11 categories were derived from the qualitative analysis representing the topics of interest: vaccination, infection control, long-term effects, therapies, test methods, mental health, symptoms, structures for pandemic control, infrastructure in health care, research. Participants preferred traditional media (TV 70.6%; radio 58.5%; newspaper 32.7%) to social media, but also used the internet as sources of information, becoming aware of new information on websites (28.5%) or via email/newsletter (20.1%). The knowledge question (Which European country is most affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic?) was correctly answered by 7.5% of participants. The Robert Koch Institute (93.7%) and the World Health Organization (78%) were well known, while other organisations providing health information were rarely known (< 10%). Barriers to accessing trustworthy information were lack of time (30.7%), little experience (23.1%), uncertainty about how to get access (22.2%), complexity and difficulties in understanding (23.9%), and a lack of target group orientation (15,3%). CONCLUSIONS: There are extensive information needs regarding various aspects on COVID-19 among the general population. In addition, target-specific dissemination strategies are still needed to reach different groups.

Coping Self-Efficacy and Its Relationship with Psychological Morbidity after Genetic Test Result Disclosure: Results from Cancer-Unaffected BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers.

Women who are found to carry a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant experience psychological distress due to an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. They may decide between different preventive options. In this secondary analysis of data collected alongside a larger randomized controlled trial, we are looking at 130 newly found BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers and how their coping self-efficacy immediately after genetic test result disclosure is related to their psychological burden and status of preventive decision making. Participants received the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Impact of Event Scale, the Decisional Conflict Scale, and the Stage of Decision-Making Scale after positive genetic test result disclosure. We found that women with higher coping self-efficacy showed fewer symptoms of anxiety or depression and were less affected by receiving the genetic test result in terms of post-traumatic stress. However, coping self-efficacy had no relationship with any decision-related criteria, such as decisional conflict or stage of decision making. This shows that despite its buffering capacity on psychological burden, possessing coping self-efficacy does not lead to more decisiveness in preference-sensitive decisions.

Efficacy of Three Numerical Presentation Formats on Lay People's Comprehension and Risk Perception of Fact Boxes-A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.

(1) Background: Fact boxes present the benefits and harms of medical interventions in the form of tables. Some studies suggest that people with a lower level of education could profit more from graphic presentations. The objective of the study was to compare three different formats in fact boxes with regard to verbatim and gist knowledge in general and according to the educational background. (2) Methods: In May 2020, recruitment started for this randomized controlled trial. Participants were given one out of three presentation formats: natural frequencies, percentages, and graphic. We used Limesurvey® to assess comprehension/risk perception as the primary outcome. The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used in addition to descriptive analyses. (3) Results: A total of 227 people took part in the study. Results of the groups were nearly identical in relation to the primary outcome verbatim knowledge, likewise in gist knowledge. However, participants with lower educational qualifications differed from participants with higher educational qualifications in terms of verbatim knowledge in the group percentages. (4) Conclusions: The results indicate that all three forms of presentation are suitable for conveying the content. Further research should take the individual preferences regarding the format into account.

[Comprehension and Perspectives of the Need for Medical Rehabilitation - Results of a German Online Survey]. / Verständnis und Bedürfnis medizinischer Rehabilitation in der Bevölkerung ­ Ergebnisse einer Online-Befragung.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, medical rehabilitation usually requires an application of the persons in need. Therefore, these persons have to understand what rehabilitation is and in what case they need this type of health care service. In addition to people with health problems, their close persons (e. g. family members) should also have rehabilitation-related knowledge. Since there is only limited data on the perspective towards medical rehabilitation services, a survey was conducted. METHOD: In September 2020, we invited 2,401 registered participants (age: 18-79 years) of a population-based online panel study to participate in an online survey. The cross-sectional survey asked about the understanding of need, subjective information as well as attitudes and expectations towards medical rehabilitation services. We analysed the data descriptively, taking into account the participants' rehabilitation experience and health impairment. In a subgroup analysis, the potential factors influencing the subjective need for rehabilitation were tested using logistic regression. RESULTS: Data from 1,464 persons (Ø age: 52.5±14.5 years; 55% non-male) were analysed, 44% of the participants considered themselves to be "rather well" or "very well" informed about medical rehabilitation. The majority associated a need for rehabilitation with the access requirements related to service providers. In case of an emerging need for rehabilitation, family doctors would be the first point of contact. The participants mainly had function-oriented expectations of rehabilitation services and a majority prefer inpatient rehabilitation if necessary. Among 383 persons with long lasting and pronounced health-related impairment, the concrete individual need for rehabilitation was associated by a higher subjective degree of impairment as well as their own previous rehabilitation experience and rehabilitation experience in their personal social environment. CONCLUSION: Despite an overall good understanding of the need for rehabilitation, different rehabilitation views were found in certain population groups. In order to improve the general understanding of rehabilitation in the public and particularly in close persons, adequate dissemination of low-threshold, population-based rehabilitation information is recommended.