Utilization of health-related data in the regional context for health service planning in the Federal State of Brandenburg, Germany-a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Utilizing regional health data goes hand in hand with challenges: can they be used for health planning, are they applicable to the relevant topics? The study explores current data utilization and needs of stakeholders working in regional health services planning. METHODS: We conducted 16 semi-structured expert-interviews with stakeholders of regional health planning in Brandenburg, a federal state in the north-east of Germany, by telephone or online-meeting tools between 05/2022 and 03/2023. The data were analysed according to qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Utilization of data sources depends on individual knowledge and personnel resources instead of being guided by standardized procedures. Interviewees primarily use internal data; some use many different platforms, studies and reports. Regional health-related data are used for reliable health planning, to prepare resolutions, draft contracts, but also for events and requests from policy makers or the press. Challenges exist in terms of availability, awareness, and acceptance of the data, perceived applicability, the ability to use it and the utilization itself. Many regional health planners indicated they would appreciate a regional integrated cross-organizational data source if the benefits for health planning outweighed the efforts. DISCUSSION: Actors in health planning primarily utilized their own data for planning; additional data sources are not available or the level of aggregation is too high, not known by them or are often not used due to a lack of time. A standardized regional monitoring would require the definition of indicators as well as the strengthening of cross-sectoral planning.

Stakeholders' perspectives on patient involvement in systematic reviews - Results of a World Café in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Patient involvement (PI) in systematic reviews (SRs) can help to improve the quality of SRs and enhance the credibility of the research process. At the same time, PI in SRs poses challenges such as the need for extra time. While several organizations and working groups from English-speaking countries provide recommendations for PI in SRs, there is a lack of current insights from stakeholders in Germany, including researchers and patients. Eliciting their perspectives is indicated, as PI in SRs in Germany might differ due to language barriers and organizational dissimilarities. For sharing and discussing stakeholders' experiences in Germany, a workshop was facilitated. This paper summarizes the results of the workshop to elucidate stakeholders' perspectives on key aspects of PI in SRs in Germany. METHODS: A World Café was conducted at the 2023 conference of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine. Participants at all levels of experience could take part without prior registration. The data obtained was summarized narratively in an iterative process, and a framework of the topics discussed was developed. RESULTS: 22 participants, predominantly researchers, took part. Participants formulated several general conditions for PI in SRs such as time and transparency. The majority of the tasks described referred to the application phase and the initial phase of a SR. The development of training and information materials in plain German language was deemed essential. The application phase of an externally funded SR and patient recruitment were considered as particularly challenging. DISCUSSION: Several of the formulated aspects such as time and transparency are consistent with earlier work. The project start of a SR, however, has so far not been explicitly described in the literature as being of particular importance. This phase might be even more crucial to SR projects in Germany since researchers are expected to develop information materials for patients. Both the application phase and patient recruitment could be considered particularly challenging due to a lower degree of organisation of PI in Germany. CONCLUSION: World Café participants described many aspects referring to the project start of a SR. This underlines that PI in SRs needs to be described as a process. A process model intertwining the phases of a SR with the respective phases of PI, ideally including best practices for each phase, could be of great value. With respect to the specific context in Germany, a greater degree of organization of PI, i.e. coordinated by an institution, could help to manage challenges such as patient recruitment.

[Quality of life of ostomates in Germany]. / Lebensqualität von Menschen mit einem künstlichen Darmausgang in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: The presence of an ostomy may have a serious impact on the quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study was to evaluate the QoL of ostomates in Germany. METHOD: An online survey was performed using the validated Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) by Eypasch et al. Ostomates ≥ 18 yrs. with an ostomy duration ≥ 3 months were eligible to participate. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires from 519 participants (79.3 % female) with a median age of 50 yrs. (range 19-83 yrs.) and a median ostomy duration of 3 yrs. (range 3 months-58 yrs.) were analyzed. The most common indications for an ostomy were Crohn's disease (36.5 %), colorectal cancer (19.8 %) and ulcerative colitis (18.2 %). The mean GIQLI-Score in the study population was 94.8 ± 24.6, with higher scores corresponding with better QoL and healthy individuals reach 125.8. Limitations were recorded with regard to sleep, tiredness, energy level, endurance, fitness and sexuality. Individuals with a stoma due to Colitis (103,0 ± 24,5), colorectal cancer (99,2 ± 21,7) and Crohn's (95,0 ± 22,8) had the highest mean GIQLI-scores amongst all ostomates. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study confirm that ostomates have a reduced QoL compared to the healthy population. Amongst all ostomates, those with colitis, colorectal cancer and Crohn's have a better QoL compared to ostomy carriers with other diagnoses.

Evidence-based health policy in Germany: lack of communication and coordination between academia and health authorities?

Health-care decision making should consider the best available evidence, often in the form of systematic reviews (SRs). The number of existing SRs and their overlap make their identification and use difficult. Decision makers often rely on de novo SRs instead of using existing SRs. We describe two cases of duplicate reviews (minimum volume threshold of total knee arthroplasties and lung cancer screening) and one case of duplicate primary data analysis (transcatheter aortic valve implantation). All cases have in common that unintended duplication of research occurred between health authorities and academia, demonstrating a lack of communication and coordination between them.It is important to note that academia and health authorities have different incentives. Academics are often measured by the number of peer-reviewed publications and grants awarded. In contrast, health authorities must comply with laws and are commissioned to deliver a specific report within a defined period of time. Most replication is currently unintended. A solution may be the collaboration of stakeholders commonly referred to as integrated knowledge translation (IKT). The IKT approach means that research is conducted in collaboration with the end users of the research. It requires active collaborations between researchers and decision-makers or knowledge users (clinicians, managers, policy makers) throughout the research process. Wherever cooperation is possible in spite of requirements for independence or confidentiality, legal regulations should facilitate and support collaborative approaches between academia and health authorities.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for studies on centralisation of healthcare services.

INTRODUCTION: Centralisation defined as the reorganisation of healthcare services into fewer specialised units serving a higher volume of patients is a potential measure for healthcare reforms aiming at reducing costs while improving quality. Research on centralisation of healthcare services is thus essential to inform decision-makers. However, so far studies on centralisation report a variability of outcomes, often neglecting outcomes at the health system level. Therefore, this study aims at developing a core outcome set (COS) for studies on centralisation of hospital procedures, which is intended for use in observational as well as in experimental studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a five-stage study design: (1) systematic review, (2) focus group, (3) interview studies, (4) online survey, (5) Delphi survey. The study will be conducted from March 2022 to November 2023. First, an initial list of outcomes will be identified through a systematic review on reported outcomes in studies on minimum volume regulations. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINHAL, EconLIT, PDQ-Evidence for Informed Health Policymaking, Health Systems Evidence, Open Grey and also trial registries. This will be supplemented with relevant outcomes from published studies on centralisation of hospital procedures. Second, we will conduct a focus group with representatives of patient advocacy groups for which minimum volume regulations are currently in effect in Germany or are likely to come into effect to identify outcomes important to patients. Furthermore, two interview studies, one with representatives of the German medical societies and one with representatives of statutory health insurance funds, as well as an online survey with health services researchers will be conducted. In our analyses of the suggested outcomes, we will largely follow the categorisation scheme developed by the Cochrane EPOC group. Finally, a two-round online Delphi survey with all stakeholder groups using predefined score criteria for consensus will be employed to first prioritise outcomes and then agree on the final COS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane (MHB). The final COS will be disseminated to all stakeholders involved and through peer-reviewed publications and conferences.

The effect of minimum volume standards in hospitals (MIVOS) - protocol of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The volume-outcome relationship, i.e., higher hospital volume results in better health outcomes, has been established for different surgical procedures as well as for certain nonsurgical medical interventions. Accordingly, many countries such as Germany, the USA, Canada, the UK, and Switzerland have established minimum volume standards. To date, there is a lack of systematically summarized evidence regarding the effects of such regulations. METHODS: To be included in the review, studies must measure any effects connected to minimum volume standards. Outcomes of interest include the following: (1) patient-related outcomes, (2) process-related outcomes, and (3) health system-related outcomes. We will include (cluster) randomized controlled trials ([C]RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time-series studies (ITSs). We will apply no restrictions regarding language, publication date, and publication status. We will search MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Embase), CENTRAL (via Cochrane Library), CINHAL (via EBSCO), EconLit (via EBSCO), PDQ evidence for informed health policymaking, health systems evidence, OpenGrey, and also trial registries for relevant studies. We will further search manually for additional studies by cross-checking the reference lists of all included primary studies as well as cross-checking the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. To evaluate the risk of bias, we will use the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 risk-of-bias tools for the corresponding study designs. For data synthesis and statistical analyses, we will follow the guidance published by the EPOC Cochrane group (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), EPOC Resources for review authors, 2019). DISCUSSION: This systematic review focuses on minimum volume standards and the outcomes used to measure their effects. It is designed to provide thorough and encompassing evidence-based information on this topic. Thus, it will inform decision-makers and policymakers with respect to the effects of minimum volume standards and inform further studies in regard to research gaps. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022318883.

The effect of preoperative stoma site marking on risk of stoma-related complications in patients with intestinal ostomy - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effect of preoperative stoma site marking on stoma-related complications in patients with intestinal ostomy. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINHAL, and Google Scholar were searched up to August 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomised studies of interventions (NRSI) that involved patients with intestinal ostomies comparing preoperative stoma site marking to no marking and which reported at least one patient-relevant outcome. Outcomes were prioritised by stakeholder involvement. Random-effects meta-analyses produced odds ratios (ORs) or standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The ROBINS-I tool and the GRADE approach were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence, respectively. RESULTS: This review included two RCTs and 25 NRSI. The risk of bias was high in RCTs and serious to critical in NRSI. Although preoperative site marking reduced stoma-related complications (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: [0.31-0.65]), dependence on professional or unprofessional care (narrative synthesis), and increased health-related quality of life (SMD: 1.13 [0.38-1.88]), the evidence is very uncertain. Preoperative site marking may probably reduce leakage (OR: 0.14 [0.06-0.37]) and may decrease dermatological complications (OR: 0.38 [0.29-0.50]) and surgical revision (OR: 0.09 [0.02-0.49]). The confidence in the cumulative evidence was moderate to very low. CONCLUSION: Despite low quality evidence, preoperative stoma site marking can prevent stoma-related complications and should be performed in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery given that this intervention poses no harm to patients.

Perspective of potential patients on the hospital volume-outcome relationship and the minimum volume threshold for total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative focus group and interview study.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is performed to treat end-stage knee osteoarthritis. In Germany, a minimum volume threshold of 50 TKAs/hospital/year was implemented to ensure outcome quality. This study, embedded within a systematic review, aimed to investigate the perspectives of potential TKA patients on the hospital volume-outcome relationship for TKA (higher volumes associated with better outcomes). METHODS: A convenience sample of adults with knee problems and heterogeneous demographic characteristics participated in the study. Qualitative data were collected during a focus group prior to the systematic review (n = 5) and during telephone interviews, in which preliminary results of the systematic review were discussed (n = 16). The data were synthesised using content analysis. RESULTS: All participants (n = 21) believed that a hospital volume-outcome relationship exists for TKA while recognising that patient behaviour or the surgeon could also influence outcomes. All participants would be willing to travel longer for better outcomes. Most interviewees would choose a hospital for TKA depending on reputation, recommendations, and service quality. However, some would also choose a hospital based on the results of the systematic review that showed slightly lower mortality/revision rates at higher-volume hospitals. Half of the interviewees supported raising the minimum volume threshold even if this were to increase travel time to receive TKA. CONCLUSIONS: Potential patients believe that a hospital volume-outcome relationship exists for TKA. Hospital preference is based mainly on subjective factors, although some potential patients would consider scientific evidence when making their choice. Policy makers and physicians should consider the patient perspectives when deciding on minimum volume thresholds or recommending hospitals for TKA, respectively.

The effect of preoperative stoma site marking on risk of stoma-related complications in patients with intestinal ostomy-protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: An intestinal ostomy is an artificial bowel opening created on the skin. Procedure-related mortality is extremely rare. However, the presence of an ostomy may be associated with significant morbidity. Complications negatively affect the quality of life of ostomates. Preoperative stoma site marking can reduce stoma-related complications and is recommended by several guidelines. However, there is no consensus on the procedure and recommendations are based on low-quality evidence. The objective of the systematic review will be to investigate if preoperative stoma site marking compared to no preoperative marking in patients undergoing intestinal stoma surgery reduces or prevents the rate of stoma-related complications. METHODS: We will include (cluster-) randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that involve patients with intestinal ostomies comparing preoperative stoma site marking to no preoperative marking and report at least one patient-relevant outcome. For study identification, we will systematically search MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINHAL as well as Google Scholar, trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists. Additionally, we will contact experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection and data extraction. Outcomes will be prioritised based on findings from telephone interviews with five ostomates and five ostomy and wound nurses prior to conducting the review. Outcomes may include but are not limited to stoma-related complications (infection, parastomal abscess, hernia, mucocutaneous separation, dermatological complications, stoma necrosis, stenosis, retraction and prolapse) or other patient-relevant postoperative endpoints (quality of life, revision rate, dependence on professional care, mortality, length of stay and readmission). We will use the ROBINS-I or the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. We will perform a meta-analysis and assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION: With the results of the systematic review, we aim to provide information for future clinical guidelines and influence clinical routine with regard to preoperative stoma site marking in patients undergoing ostomy surgery. When the evidence of our systematic review is low, it would still be a useful basis for future clinical trials by identifying data gaps. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021226647.

Author queries via email text elicited high response and took less reviewer time than data forms - a randomised study within a review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two strategies for requesting additional information for systematic reviews (SR) from study authors. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised study within a SR of hospital volume-outcome relationships in total knee arthroplasty. We sent personalized email requests for additional information to study authors as either email text ("Email" group) or attachment with self-developed, personalised data request forms ("Attachment" group). The primary outcome was the response rate, the secondary outcomes were the data completeness rate and the reviewer time invested in author contact. RESULTS: Of 57 study authors, 29 were randomised to the Email group and 28 to the Attachment group. The response rate was 93% for Email and 75% for Attachment (odds ratio 4.5, 95% confidence interval [0.9-24.0]). Complete data were provided by 55% (Email) vs. 36% (Attachment) of authors (odds ratio 2.2 [0.8-6.4]). The mean reviewer time was shorter in the Email (mean ± standard deviation of 20.2±14.4 minutes/author) than the Attachment group (31.8±14.4 minutes/author) with a mean difference of 11.6 [4.1-19.1] minutes/author. CONCLUSION: Personalised email requests elicited high response but only moderate data completeness rates regardless of the method (email text or attachment). Email requests as text took less reviewer time than creating attachments.