[How much digital public health is in public health degree programs? A systematic analysis of module handbooks in German full-time study programs at public colleges and universities]. / Wie viel Digital Public Health steckt in Public-Health-Studiengängen? Eine systematische Modulhandbuchanalyse von Vollzeitstudiengängen an öffentlichen Hochschulen und Universitäten in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: Professionals, especially in the field of digital public health (DiPH), are crucial for a successful digital transformation in social and health care. However, it is still unclear to what extent academic professionals are taught DiPH-related content in their public health (PH) studies. METHODS: This study used a systematic module handbook analysis to analyze accredited full-time PH-oriented degree programs at public colleges and universities in Germany for DiPH-related module content. Through the "Hochschulkompass" platform and the member programs of the German Public Health Association (DGPH), 422 programs were identified. Included module handbooks were evaluated by content analysis using MAXQDA. RESULTS: Only 10 bachelor and 6 master programs contain DiPH. They are heterogeneous in their focus and belong to different subfields of public health ("methods, definition, history, and social medicine" = 5; "health management" = 5; "digital health" = 3; "health services research" = 2; "health communication" = 1). Differences were found between the common understanding of DiPH in academia and the content in the module handbooks. The content identified in the analysis focuses mainly on technical areas. Social and health science content is only marginally present. DISCUSSION: The heterogeneous study programs with a connection to DiPH allow academic PH specialists to develop specific profiles. To achieve comprehensive competencies in DiPH, there is a need for further development of modules with relevance to the respective degree program. The results could be used for the (further) development of relevant modules and a core curriculum in DiPH.

Restless Legs Syndrome: Psychiatric Comorbidities Are More Important Than Neuroticism.

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is often associated with psychopathological symptoms. We compared psychiatric diagnoses, psychological complaints, sleep and personality traits in RLS patients and a control group The RLS patients also answered the IRLS, RLS-6, and QoL-RLS. The RLS patients showed more depressive disorders, psychopathological symptoms, and lower well-being than controls, but no differences in personality traits. The slightly, but not significantly, higher neuroticism found in RLS patients can be explained by the higher rates of depression among the patients. It is advisable to screen RLS patients for psychiatric comorbidities. The design using a matched control group without sleep disorders limits the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the frequency of psychiatric diagnoses and controls with sleep problems.