[COVID-19 vaccination status, sources of used information and socio-demographic characteristics-results of the CoSiD study]. / COVID-19-Impfstatus, genutzte Informationsquellen und soziodemografische Merkmale ­ Ergebnisse der CoSiD-Studie.

BACKGROUND: Despite the benefits of a COVID-19 vaccination, too few people in Germany were still considered vaccinated in the summer of 2022. This was explained, among other factors, by socio-demographic differences. The article also analyses this correlation by including the sources of information used on corona vaccination based on the data from the third survey of the "Accompanying research on the communication of corona vaccination in Germany" (CoSiD study, Nov./Dec. 2021; n = 4366 16-year-olds and older). METHODS: Bi- and multivariate correlations were analysed between the uptake of vaccination or the intention to vaccinate of the unvaccinated and socio-demographic characteristics as well as sources of information on COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: Of the respondents, 87.7% have been vaccinated at least once. The vaccination rate tends to increase with age, education level and household income and is higher among people in the old federal states and without a migration background. The sources of information on COVID-19 vaccination were mostly discussions among family, friends and colleagues (81.8%) and German TV and radio stations (77.1%). In the multivariate model, higher proportions of people without vaccination intentions were found among respondents who obtained information from TV and radio stations from abroad as well as from social media. DISCUSSION: Information offerings for specific target groups must take social inequalities even more into account. One challenge here is that the use of different information sources is related to different vaccination intentions. In particular, people with vaccination intentions and the undecided can be reached with easily understandable, trustworthy information offerings.

CAT HPPR: a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of systematic, rapid, and scoping reviews investigating interventions in health promotion and prevention.

BACKGROUND: For over three decades researchers have developed critical appraisal tools (CATs) for assessing the scientific quality of research overviews. Most established CATs for reviews in evidence-based medicine and evidence-based public health (EBPH) focus on systematic reviews (SRs) with studies on experimental interventions or exposure included. EBPH- and implementation-oriented organisations and decision-makers, however, often seek access to rapid reviews (RRs) or scoping reviews (ScRs) for rapid evidence synthesis and research field exploration. Until now, no CAT is available to assess the quality of SRs, RRs, and ScRs following a unified approach. We set out to develop such a CAT. METHODS: The development process of the Critical Appraisal Tool for Health Promotion and Prevention Reviews (CAT HPPR) included six phases: (i) the definition of important review formats and complementary approaches, (ii) the identification of relevant CATs, (iii) prioritisation, selection and adaptation of quality criteria using a consensus approach, (iv) development of the rating system and bilingual guidance documents, (v) engaging with experts in the field for piloting/optimising the CAT, and (vi) approval of the final CAT. We used a pragmatic search approach to identify reporting guidelines/standards (n = 3; e.g. PRISMA, MECIR) as well as guidance documents (n = 17; e.g. for reviews with mixed-methods approach) to develop working definitions for SRs, RRs, ScRs, and other review types (esp. those defined by statistical methods or included data sources). RESULTS: We successfully identified 14 relevant CATs, predominantly for SRs (e.g. AMSTAR 2), and extracted 46 items. Following consensual discussions 15 individual criteria were included in our CAT and tailored to the review types of interest. The CAT was piloted with 14 different reviews which were eligible to be included in a new German database looking at interventions in health promotion and prevention in different implementation settings. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed CAT HPPR follows a unique uniformed approach to assess a set of heterogeneous reviews (e.g. reviews from problem identification to policy evaluations) to assist end-users needs. Feedback of external experts showed general feasibility and satisfaction with the tool. Future studies should further formally test the validity of CAT HPPR using larger sets of reviews.

[Insights for healthy settings: a database to support the translation of findings from systematic reviews into practice]. / Wissen für gesunde Lebenswelten: Eine Datenbank zum Praxistransfer von Erkenntnissen aus systematischen Übersichtsarbeiten.

The database "Insights for healthy settings" was developed by the GKV-Bündnis für Gesundheit, a joint initiative of all health insurance funds for developing and implementing setting-based health promotion and prevention measures. It aims to support health insurance funds and other practice partners in planning and implementing evidence-based health promotion and prevention measures in different settings. The database complements existing intervention databases by providing insights based on findings from systematic reviews. This article aims to present the database, describe possible applications, and discuss options for further development.The database contains findings on the effectiveness and strategies for implementation of setting-based health promotion and prevention measures. In addition to structured summaries of systematic reviews, it includes summaries of scoping reviews and rapid reviews. Different search options (e.g., free text search, subject headings, and search filters) can be used to find database entries (currently n = 13). Quality-assured database entries are created by means of a standardized form and based on the four-eyes principle. To allow for easy access, key findings are presented briefly, and technical terms are clarified. Experts from health insurance funds are continuously involved in the development process of the database.As part of the database's further development, new reviews of the GKV-Bündnis für Gesundheit as well as from other sources will be added. Additionally, quality assessments of included reviews will be depicted and supporting activities developed to further encourage translation of scientific knowledge into practice.