[Health Science Research with Primary Care Routine Data From Electronic Patient Records: the BeoNet Registry]. / Gesundheitswissenschaftliche Forschung mit primärärztlichen Routinedaten der elektronischen Patientenakte: das BeoNet-Register.

Reliable current information is needed for daily patient care and the health system, but comprehensive data, especially from primary care, are scarce and/or hard to access. The BeoNet Register-Database (BNR) aims to depict quality of medical care in Germany using routine data and with no additional documentation or costs for GPs. Registry design, data structure and database use will be demonstrated using chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) as an example. The BNR is moving through pilot- and roll-out phases. Participating practices provide standardized information about (1) master data (2) practice profile (3) infrastructure and documentation systems. The routinely documented data will be pseudonymized before transmission via standardized secure interfaces to the registry database. Practices can participate in studies in cooperation with BNR if informed consent is obtained from the patients. The registry data will be linked with questionnaires on health care utilization, quality of life and disease-specific parameters. Researchers and physicians can access quasi anonymized data in specific datasets extracted from the registry. Regular automatic data quality checks and feedback from GPs, patients and researchers enhance the quality of the registry. Performance and data analysis are continuously optimized. The data security concept has been approved and ethical approval is on hand. GPs, pediatricians and pneumologists from Hanover, Munich and Heidelberg participated in the pilot phase. The registry database currently holds 98497 patient IDs and related information. BNR contains more than the standard billing data collected by health insurers. The data are applicable to a wide range of health practices, health care and economics and disease development questions. Questionnaires have been generated, tested and are being distributed. First descriptive analyses of prevalence, age and gender have been performed. Quality and validity checks have been implemented. 2016 marks the roll-out phase of the BNR. Further recruitment of practices throughout Germany, data linkage with additional questionnaires, recruitment of patients for health care research projects, quality checks and data analysis of disease-specific costs and health-related quality of life in COPD are progressing with the overall aim of improving pulmonary healthcare strategies. The floor is now open for retro- and prospective cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.

Trade-off between benefits, harms and economic efficiency of low-dose CT lung cancer screening: a microsimulation analysis of nodule management strategies in a population-based setting.

BACKGROUND: In lung cancer screening, a nodule management protocol describes nodule assessment and thresholds for nodule size and growth rate to identify patients who require immediate diagnostic evaluation or additional imaging exams. The Netherlands-Leuvens Screening Trial and the National Lung Screening Trial used different selection criteria and nodule management protocols. Several modelling studies have reported variations in screening outcomes and cost-effectiveness across selection criteria and screening intervals; however, the effect of variations in the nodule management protocol remains uncertain. This study evaluated the effects of the eligibility criteria and nodule management protocols on the benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of lung screening scenarios in a population-based setting in Germany. METHODS: We developed a modular microsimulation model: a biological module simulated individual histories of lung cancer development from carcinogenesis onset to death; a screening module simulated patient selection, screening-detection, nodule management protocols, diagnostic evaluation and screening outcomes. Benefits included mortality reduction, life years gained and averted lung cancer deaths. Harms were costs, false positives and overdiagnosis. The comparator was no screening. The evaluated 76 screening scenarios included variations in selection criteria and thresholds for nodule size and growth rate. RESULTS: Five years of annual screening resulted in a 9.7-12.8% lung cancer mortality reduction in the screened population. The efficient scenarios included volumetric assessment of nodule size, a threshold for a volume of 300 mm3 and a threshold for a volume doubling time of 400 days. Assessment of volume doubling time is essential for reducing overdiagnosis and false positives. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the efficient scenarios were 16,754-23,847 euro per life year gained and 155,287-285,630 euro per averted lung cancer death. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer screening can be cost-effective in Germany. Along with the eligibility criteria, the nodule management protocol influences screening performance and cost-effectiveness. Definition of the thresholds for nodule size and nodule growth in the nodule management protocol should be considered in detail when defining optimal screening strategies.

Treatment-related experiences and preferences of patients with lung cancer: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is one of the most common types of cancer worldwide, and it causes significant challenges for patients due to the poor survival rate and treatment-related side-effects. Because of lung cancer's great burden, identification and use of the patients' preferences can help to improve patients' quality of life. OBJECTIVE: Interviews with patients who have lung cancer were used to ascertain a range of experiences and to make recommendations regarding the improvement of treatment based on these patients' preferences. Because chemotherapy is the common treatment option for lung cancer, we focused on this treatment. The interviews were audio-taped, verbally transcribed and evaluated via content analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 18 participants (11 men and 7 women) with small or non-small-cell lung cancer who were receiving chemotherapy in one clinic were interviewed between June and July 2013. RESULTS: Two main aspects with different subthemes were identified during the interviews. One main aspect focused on organizational context, such as the treatment day process, or experiences with different stakeholders, such as with the health insurance company or physicians. The other category referred to experiences that influenced psychosocial factors, including physical and mental experiences. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Patients reported different experiences concerning physical, psychological and organizational areas during chemotherapy. Nevertheless, some potential areas for improving care, and therefore the quality of life of patients with lung cancer, could be identified. These improvement measures highlighted that with small, non-time-consuming and inexpensive changes, the treatment for patients with lung cancer can be improved.

Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting.

BACKGROUND: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), developed by Saaty in the late 1970s, is one of the methods for multi-criteria decision making. The AHP disaggregates a complex decision problem into different hierarchical levels. The weight for each criterion and alternative are judged in pairwise comparisons and priorities are calculated by the Eigenvector method. The slowly increasing application of the AHP was the motivation for this study to explore the current state of its methodology in the healthcare context. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted by searching the Pubmed and Web of Science databases for articles with the following keywords in their titles or abstracts: "Analytic Hierarchy Process," "Analytical Hierarchy Process," "multi-criteria decision analysis," "multiple criteria decision," "stated preference," and "pairwise comparison." In addition, we developed reporting criteria to indicate whether the authors reported important aspects and evaluated the resulting studies' reporting. RESULTS: The systematic review resulted in 121 articles. The number of studies applying AHP has increased since 2005. Most studies were from Asia (almost 30%), followed by the US (25.6%). On average, the studies used 19.64 criteria throughout their hierarchical levels. Furthermore, we restricted a detailed analysis to those articles published within the last 5 years (n = 69). The mean of participants in these studies were 109, whereas we identified major differences in how the surveys were conducted. The evaluation of reporting showed that the mean of reported elements was about 6.75 out of 10. Thus, 12 out of 69 studies reported less than half of the criteria. CONCLUSION: The AHP has been applied inconsistently in healthcare research. A minority of studies described all the relevant aspects. Thus, the statements in this review may be biased, as they are restricted to the information available in the papers. Hence, further research is required to discover who should be interviewed and how, how inconsistent answers should be dealt with, and how the outcome and stability of the results should be presented. In addition, we need new insights to determine which target group can best handle the challenges of the AHP.

[Priority setting and rationing of pharmaceuticals - an experimental analysis of discussion processes]. / Priorisierung und Rationierung von Arzneimittel ­ eine experimentelle Analyse von Diskussionsprozessen.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: In the face of rising expenditure among statutory sickness funds in Germany it is necessary to start a discussion about priority setting in the healthcare system. For a long time this issue has been avoided in healthcare debates. As a result, normative directives are still missing, which can lead to priority setting among healthcare providers in daily healthcare practice. Prioritization can be conducted at three different levels: at the government (macro), the institutional (meso), and the patient (micro) level. Surveys about societal preferences for different criteria exist; however, specifications on their respective weighting in the situation of approval and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals (meso) are missing. For this reason, the present study analyzed the implementation and weighting of the criteria for priority setting at the meso level, taking values and experiences of the participants into account. METHOD: Six qualitative focus groups were carried out with representatives from the fields of medicine, ethics, public health and economics. During the discussions four fictitious drugs for the treatment of different lung diseases were prioritized based on guidelines. The discussion processes were analyzed according to Bohnsack's documentary method. RESULTS: The criteria "quality of life", "life expectancy" and "other patient-relevant outcomes" were discussed in relation to each other. The evaluation of change in patient-relevant outcomes was difficult to perform for non-medical participants. The second argument concerned the criteria "costs", disease severity and "number of patients". Costs were given less weight, but were often used to support other criteria. Other challenges in reaching a consensus included emerging role conflicts between profession and personal opinion, and the transfer of the discussion to a different level of decision-making. DISCUSSION: In the discussions the problem of prioritizing did not arise from different preferences for prioritization criteria, but from the weighting of the criteria. The operationalization of the criteria seemingly depends on the decision-making situation, the participants' personal connection with the relevant disease and on the correspondence between evidence and personal experiences.