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.

Psychosocial interventions for reducing antipsychotic medication in care home residents.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications are regularly prescribed in care home residents for the management of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) despite questionable efficacy, important adverse effects, and available non-pharmacological interventions. Prescription rates are related to organisational factors, staff training and job satisfaction, patient characteristics, and specific interventions. Psychosocial intervention programmes aimed at reducing the prescription of antipsychotic drugs are available. These programmes may target care home residents (e.g. improving communication and interpersonal relationships) or target staff (e.g. by providing skills for caring for people with BPSD). Therefore, this review aimed to assess the effectiveness of these interventions, updating our earlier review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of psychosocial interventions to reduce antipsychotic medication use in care home residents compared to regular care, optimised regular care, or a different psychosocial intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 14 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual or cluster-randomised controlled trials comparing a psychosocial intervention aimed primarily at reducing the use of antipsychotic medication with regular care, optimised regular care, or a different psychosocial intervention. Psychosocial interventions were defined as non-pharmacological intervention with psychosocial components. We excluded medication withdrawal or substitution interventions, interventions without direct interpersonal contact and communication, and interventions solely addressing policy changes or structural interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Critical appraisal of studies addressed risks of selection, performance, attrition and detection bias, as well as criteria related to cluster randomisation. We retrieved data on the complex interventions on the basis of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist. Our primary outcomes were 1. use of regularly prescribed antipsychotic medication and 2. ADVERSE EVENTS: Our secondary outcomes were 3. mortality; 4. BPSD; 5. quality of life; 6. prescribing of regularly psychotropic medication; 7. regimen of regularly prescribed antipsychotic medication; 8. antipsychotic medication administered 'as needed'; 9. physical restraints; 10. cognitive status; 11. depression; 12. activities of daily living; and 13. COSTS: We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included five cluster-randomised controlled studies (120 clusters, 8342 participants). We found pronounced clinical heterogeneity and therefore decided to present study results narratively. All studies investigated complex interventions comprising, among other components, educational approaches. Because of the heterogeneity of the results, including the direction of effects, we are uncertain about the effects of psychosocial interventions on the prescription of antipsychotic medication. One study investigating an educational intervention for care home staff assessed the use of antipsychotic medication in days of use per 100 resident-days, and found this to be lower in the intervention group (mean difference 6.30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.05 to 6.66; 1152 participants). The other four studies reported the proportion of participants with a regular antipsychotic prescription. Of two studies implementing an intervention to promote person-centred care, one found a difference in favour of the intervention group (between-group difference 19.1%, 95% CI 0.5% to 37.7%; 338 participants), while the other found a difference in favour of the control group (between-group difference 11.4%, 95% CI 0.9% to 21.9%; 862 participants). One study investigating an educational programme described as "academic detailing" found no difference between groups (odds ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.20; 5363 participants). The fifth study used a factorial design to compare different combinations of interventions to supplement person-centred care. Results showed a positive effect of medication review, and no clear effect of social interaction or exercise. We considered that, overall, the evidence about this outcome was of low certainty. We found high-certainty evidence that psychosocial interventions intended primarily to reduce antipsychotic use resulted in little to no difference in the number of falls, non-elective hospitalisations, or unplanned emergency department visits. Psychosocial interventions intended primarily to reduce antipsychotic use also resulted in little to no difference in quality of life (moderate-certainty evidence), and BPSD, regular prescribing of psychotropic medication, use of physical restraints, depression, or activities of daily living (all low-certainty evidence). We also found low-certainty evidence that, in the context of these interventions, social interaction and medication review may reduce mortality, but exercise does not. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All included interventions were complex and the components of the interventions differed considerably between studies. Interventions and intervention components were mostly not described in sufficient detail. Two studies found evidence that the complex psychosocial interventions may reduce antipsychotic medication use. In addition, one study showed that medication review might have some impact on antipsychotic prescribing rates. There were no important adverse events. Overall, the available evidence does not allow for clear generalisable recommendations.

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.

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.

A blended learning training programme for health information providers to enhance implementation of the Guideline Evidence-based Health Information: development and qualitative pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The Guideline Evidence-based Health Information was published in 2017 and addresses health information providers. The long-term goal of the guideline is to improve the quality of health information. Evidence-based health information represents a prerequisite for informed decision-making. Health information providers lack competences in evidence-based medicine. Therefore, our aim was to develop and pilot-test a blended learning training programme for health information providers to enhance application of the guideline. METHODS: 1. DEVELOPMENT: We developed the training programme according to the Medical Research Council guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions. The training programme was planned on the basis of problem-based learning. It aims to impart competences in evidence-based medicine. Furthermore, it comprises the application of criteria for evidence-based health information. 2.Pilot testing: We conducted a qualitative pilot study focusing on the acceptability and feasibility of the training programme. Health information providers were recruited and in-house training sessions were offered. Feasibility and acceptability were explored by structured class observations and in semi-structured focus group interviews with the participants after the training sessions. The transcripts and documentations were analysed using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. The training was revised iteratively according to the results. RESULTS: We conducted two training courses with 17 participants between November 2018 and March 2019. The adequacy of the training for the target group was identified as a major issue. There was significant heterogeneity concerning previous knowledge. Some wished to delve deeper while others seemed to be overwhelmed. In general, the work tasks were understandable. However, the participants asked for a more detailed theoretical introduction in advance. The practical relevance of the evidence-based medicine contents was rated rather low compared to the content about evidence-based health information. Based on these results, we revised the programme. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the training proved to be feasible for implementation. Meeting the needs of all the participants was a challenge, since they were heterogeneous. Not all of them will be able or intend to implement the training contents into their working routine to the full extent. The implementation will be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial.

Informed decision-making with and for people with dementia - efficacy of the PRODECIDE education program for legal representatives: protocol of a randomized controlled trial (PRODECIDE-RCT).

BACKGROUND: In Germany, the guardianship system provides adults who are no longer able to handle their own affairs a court-appointed legal representative, for support without restriction of legal capacity. Although these representatives only rarely are qualified in healthcare, they nevertheless play decisive roles in the decision-making processes for people with dementia. Previously, we developed an education program (PRODECIDE) to address this shortcoming and tested it for feasibility. Typical, autonomy-restricting decisions in the care of people with dementia-namely, using percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or physical restrains (PR), or the prescription of antipsychotic drugs (AP)-were the subject areas trained. The training course aims to enhance the competency of legal representatives in informed decision-making. In this study, we will evaluate the efficacy of the PRODECIDE education program. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial with a six-month follow-up will be conducted to compare the PRODECIDE education program with standard care, enrolling legal representatives (N = 216). The education program lasts 10 h and comprises four modules: A, decision-making processes and methods; and B, C and D, evidence-based knowledge about PEG, PR and AP, respectively. The primary outcome measure is knowledge, which is operationalized as the understanding of decision-making processes in healthcare affairs and in setting realistic expectations about benefits and harms of PEG, PR and AP in people with dementia. Secondary outcomes are sufficient and sustainable knowledge and percentage of persons concerned affected by PEG, FEM or AP. A qualitative process evaluation will be performed. Additionally, to support implementation, a concept for translating the educational contents into e-learning modules will be developed. DISCUSSION: The study results will show whether the efficacy of the education program could justify its implementation into the regular training curricula for legal representatives. Additionally, it will determine whether an e-learning course provides a valuable backup or even alternative learning strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRN: ISRCTN17960111 , Date: 01/06/2017.

Informed Decision-Making with and for People with Dementia-Efficacy of the PRODECIDE Education Program for Legal Representatives: A Randomized Controlled Trial (PRODECIDE-RCT) and Process Evaluation.

Legal representatives take a major role in healthcare decisions with and for people with dementia, but only a minority has a qualification in this field. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of the PRODECIDE education program for legal representatives. In a prospective randomized controlled trial, legal representatives (volunteers and professionals, representing at least one person with dementia) were allocated (1:1 computer-generated block randomization) to the intervention (PRODECIDE education program) and control (standard care) groups. The primary outcome measure was knowledge, operationalized as the understanding of decision-making processes and in setting realistic expectations. Only data entry and analyses were blinded. A process evaluation in a mixed methods design was performed. We enrolled 218 legal representatives, and 216 were included in the primary analysis (intervention n = 109, control n = 107). The percentage of correct answers in the knowledge test post intervention was 69.0% in the intervention and 43.4% in the control group (difference 25.6%; CI 95%, 21.3 to 29.8; p < 0.001). In the comparison of professional and voluntary representatives, professionals had 13.6% (CI 95%, 8.0 to 19.2; p < 0.001) more correct answers. The PRODECIDE education program can improve the knowledge of legal representatives, an important prerequisite for evidence-based, informed decision-making.

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.

The effects of modifying elements of written informed consent forms for elective surgical or invasive procedures: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of modifying content and design elements within written informed-consent-forms (ICF) for patients undergoing elective surgical or invasive procedures. METHODS: We included (quasi-)randomized trials in which a modified written ICF (e.g. visual aids) was compared to a standard written ICF. We searched PubMed, Web-of-Science and PsycINFO until 08/2021. Risk of Bias was assessed. The complexity of intervention was assessed using the Intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: Eleven trials with 1091 participants were eligible. Effect sizes and levels of evidence varied from trivial to moderate andthere were contradictory findings for some outcomes. Providing patients with more informationin general or specific information on risks and complications mostly increased anxiety. The use of verbal risk presentation decreased anxiety and increased satisfaction.A lower readability level decreased anxiety and improved comprehension and knowledge. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that providing more information and addressing certain types of risks have differential effects. While more information improved knowledge, it also increased anxiety. We did not find any or only insufficient evidence for many other possible ICF modifications. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: When developing ICFs the differential impact of different elements on patient important outcomes should be carefully considered.

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.

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.

Development and Piloting of a Web-Based Tool to Teach Relative and Absolute Risk Reductions.

Interpreting study results is an essential component of decision-making. Both laypeople and healthcare professionals often misinterpret treatment effects that are presented as relative risk reduction. Therefore, we developed and piloted a web-based tool to teach the difference between relative and absolute risk reductions. This project follows the UKMRC-guidance for complex interventions. The tool was developed based on adult learning and design theories. This was followed by a qualitative feasibility study focusing on acceptance, applicability, and comprehensibility with healthcare professionals and laypersons. We conducted think-aloud and semi-structured interviews and analysed them using qualitative content analysis. In addition, we explored calculation skills. Between January 2020 and April 2021, we conducted 22 interviews with 8 laypeople and 14 healthcare professionals from different settings. Overall, the tool proved to be feasible and relevant. With regard to comprehension, we observed an awareness of the interpretation of risk reduction, presented therapy effects were questioned more critically, and the influence of relative effects was recognized. Nevertheless, there were comprehension problems in some of the participants, especially with calculations in connection with low mathematical skills. The tool can be used to improve the interpretation of risk reductions in various target groups and to supplement existing educational programs.

COVID-19 Intensive Care-Evaluation of Public Information Sources and Current Standards of Care in German Intensive Care Units: A Cross Sectional Online Survey on Intensive Care Staff in Germany.

Backround: In February 2021, the first formal evidence and consensus-based (S3) guidelines for the inpatient treatment of patients with COVID-19 were published in Germany and have been updated twice during 2021. The aim of the present study is to re-evaluate the dissemination pathways and strategies for ICU staff (first evaluation in December 2020 when previous versions of consensus-based guidelines (S2k) were published) and question selected aspects of guideline adherence of standard care for patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey among German intensive care staff from 11 October 2021 to 11 November 2021. We distributed the survey via e-mail in intensive care facilities and requested redirection to additional intensive care staff (snowball sampling). Results: There was a difference between the professional groups in the number, selection and qualitative assessment of information sources about COVID-19. Standard operating procedures were most frequently used by all occupational groups and received a high quality rating. Physicians preferred sources for active information search (e.g., medical journals), while nurses predominantly used passive consumable sources (e.g., every-day media). Despite differences in usage behaviour, the sources were rated similarly in terms of the quality of the information on COVID-19. The trusted organizations have not changed over time. The use of guidelines was frequently stated and highly recommended. The majority of the participants reported guideline-compliant treatment. Nevertheless, there were certain variations in the use of medication as well as the criteria chosen for discontinuing non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to guideline recommendations. Conclusions: An adequate external source of information for nursing staff is lacking, the usual sources of physicians are only appropriate for the minority of nursing staff. The self-reported use of guidelines is high.

Development, piloting, and evaluation of an evidence-based informed consent form for total knee arthroplasty (EvAb-Pilot): a protocol for a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Practitioners frequently use informed consent forms to support the physician-patient communication and the informed consent process. Informed consent for surgery often focuses on risk centered information due to high liability risks for treatment errors. This may affect patients' anxiety of adverse events and the nocebo effect. This study focuses on the optimization of pre-surgical information on risks and complications, and at the same time reconciles these information with legal requirements. METHODS: The development, piloting, and evaluation of evidence-based informed consent forms for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and related anesthesia procedures will follow the UK MRC Framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Conducting different sub-studies, we will (I) qualitatively explore the information acquisition and decision-making processes, (II) develop and pilot test evidence-based informed consent forms on the example of TKA and related anesthesia procedures, (III) conduct a monocentric interrupted time series (ITS) pilot study to evaluate the effects of evidence-based informed consent forms in comparison with standard consent forms, and (IV) perform a process evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the intervention and to analyze mechanisms of impact. DISCUSSION: The evidence-based and understandable presentation of risks in informed consent forms aims at avoiding distorted risk depiction and strengthening the patients' competencies to correctly assess the risks of undergoing surgery. This might reduce negative expectations and anxiety of adverse events, which in turn might reduce the nocebo effect. At the same time, the practitioners' acceptance of evidence-based informed consent forms meeting legal requirements could be increased. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04669483 . Registered 15 December 2020. German Clinical Trials Registry, DRKS00022571 . Registered 15 December 2020.

Efficacy of a training programme to support the application of the guideline evidence-based health information: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The evidence-based guideline entitled guideline evidence-based health information emerged from the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine (DNEbM) and was published in February 2017. The guideline addresses providers of health information and its goal is to improve the quality of health information. In addition, we explored the competences of providers of health information and developed a training programme. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a training programme addressing providers of health information to support the application of the guideline evidence-based health information. We expected the intervention to improve the quality of health information in comparison to the provision of the guideline on its own. METHODS/DESIGN: The trial uses a superiority randomised control group design with 10 months' follow-up. Twenty-six providers of health information (groups with up to ten members) will be enrolled to compare the intervention (guideline and training programme) with usual care (a publicly available guideline). The 5-day training programme comprises an evidence-based medicine training module and a module to prepare the application of the guideline. The primary outcome parameter is the quality of the health information. Quality is operationalised as the extent of adherence to the guideline's recommendations. Each provider will prepare a single health information item informing a health-related decision on a topic freely chosen before randomisation. The quality of this information will be rated using the Mapping Health Information Quality (MAPPinfo) Checklist. An accompanying process evaluation will then be conducted. DISCUSSION: The study results should show whether the efficacy of the intervention justifies implementation of the training programme to enhance health information developers' competences in evidence-based medicine and to ensure high-quality evidence-based health information (EBHI) in the long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN96941060. Registered on 7 March 2019.

Development and piloting of a blended learning training programme for physicians and medical students to enhance their competences in evidence-based decision-making.

INTRODUCTION: In 2016, the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine revised its basic curriculum for competences in evidence-based medicine. A curriculum-based training programme for physicians and medical students to enhance their competences in evidence-based decision-making was developed. The training programme was planned on the basis of problem-based learning. The aim of this qualitative pilot study was to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the training programme. Hypotheses concerning its influence on critical health literacy and the attitude toward evidence-based decision-making were to be generated. METHODS: Participating healthcare professionals received a structured training in a blended learning format. Data collection was conducted during the training sessions. The lessons were observed and protocolled and the working results were documented. Two focus group interviews were conducted after the training blocks with focus on acceptability and feasibility of the training programme. Interview transcripts and protocols were analysed using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Data saturation was intended by an iterative process of testing, analysing and revising the training programme. In addition, critical health literacy was assessed using the validated Critical Health Competence test. Levels of competence were calculated to measure the effect of the training on critical health competences. RESULTS: Two pilot courses with 29 physicians and other healthcare professionals were conducted between January and March 2019. Overall, the training programme proved to be feasible. The participants rated the comprehensibility of the learning modules as high. However, the practical exercises (e.g. role plays in shared decision-making) revealed that relevant subjects were insufficiently understood (e.g. the difference between the benefits and harms of a diagnostic test and its test accuracy). The interactive instructional design was appreciated. The participants appraised the work tasks as comprehensible but also challenging and requested a theoretical introduction to statistical terms in preparation for work tasks. The programme was revised iteratively according to the results. Critical health competences increased significantly after the training. Mean values (±SD) of levels of competence were 571.21 (±82.87) before training and 671.90 (±51.38) after training (p<0.0001) (levels of competence with a range from 0 to 1,000). CONCLUSION: The training programme is feasible and was well accepted by the participants. It should be established as a continuing medical education opportunity for practitioners. Evaluation in a randomised controlled trial is recommended. Furthermore, the training can easily be adapted for interprofessional training. A concept for long-term implementation is needed.

MAPPinfo, mapping quality of health information: study protocol for a validation study of an assessment instrument.

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 Halle-Wittenberg (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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: AsPredected22546; date of registration: 24 July 2019. PROTOCOL VERSION: July 2020.