Objectives Patients' self-report of medicine taking is a feasible method of assessing their adherence to prescribed pharmacological treatment. Aim of this study was to assess whether the German version of the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-D) is an appropriate instrument for measuring patient adherence. Methods After translation into German, the questionnaire was sent to 1488 patients with chronic diseases and patients with risk factors of cardiovascular disease. Reliability and validity of the MARS-D were assessed and compared with the psychometric properties of the original English version. The relationship between patients' characteristics and adherent behaviour was estimated using bivariate correlation and a linear regression model. Results The MARS-D was analysed if patients were taking medicines and the MARS-D was complete leaving 523 (35.1%) analysable questionnaires. Internal consistency of the MARS-D (Cronbach's alpha 0.60-0.69) was satisfactory and comparable to the English original (Cronbach's alpha 0.69-0.90). Test-retest reliability was satisfactory (Pearson's r 0.61-0.63), however, lower than in the English sample (r = 0.97). Convergent validity was low but showed statistical significance. Patient socio-demographic characteristics had weak influence on MARS-D score indicating high reported adherence for older patients (P < 0.05), patients with German mother tongue (P < 0.05) and high number of medicines (P < 0.01). Conclusions Preliminary psychometric evaluation of the MARS-D is encouraging. MARS-D is an appropriate measure to detect patients at risk of non-adherence. The MARS-D could be used in routine care to support communication about the medication taking behaviour, as self-report of non-adherent behaviour corresponds to the facts.
BackgroundIn Germany, there is a shortage of young physicians in several specialties, the situation of general practitioners (GP) being especially precarious. The factors influencing the career choice of German medical students are poorly understood. This study aims to identify factors influencing medical students' specialty choice laying a special focus on general practice.MethodsThe study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. In 2010, students at the five medical schools in the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg (Germany) filled out an online-questionnaire. On 27 items with 5-point Likert scales, the students rated the importance of specified individual and occupational aspects. Furthermore, students were asked to assign their intended medical specialty.Results1,299 students participated in the survey. Thereof, 1,114 students stated a current choice for a specialty, with 708 students choosing a career in one of the following 6 specialties: internal medicine, surgery, gynaecology and obstetrics, paediatrics, anaesthetics and general practice. Overall, individual aspects ('Personal ambition', 'Future perspective', 'Work-life balance') were rated as more important than occupational aspects (i.e. 'Variety in job', 'Job-related ambition') for career choice. For students favouring a career as a GP individual aspects and the factor 'Patient orientation' among the occupational aspects were significantly more important and 'Job-related ambition' less important compared to students with other specialty choices.ConclusionsThis study confirms that future GPs differ from students intending to choose other specialties particularly in terms of patient-orientation and individual aspects such as personal ambition, future perspective and work-life balance. Improving job-conditions in terms of family compatibility and work-life balance could help to increase the attractiveness of general practice. Due to the shortage of GPs those factors should be made explicit at an early stage at medical school to increase the number of aspirants for general practice.
The BMQ is a suitable instrument to measure patients' beliefs in medicines in German primary care settings. Most patients in our sample had positive beliefs concerning the necessity of their medication. Their levels of concern were associated with higher non-adherence.
BackgroundChronic (systolic) heart failure (CHF) represents a clinical syndrome with high individual and societal burden of disease. Multifaceted interventions like case management are seen as promising ways of improving patient outcomes, but lack a robust evidence base, especially for primary care. The aim of the study was to explore the effectiveness of a new model of CHF case management conducted by doctors' assistants (DAs, equivalent to a nursing role) and supported by general practitioners (GPs).MethodsThis patient-randomised controlled trial (phase II) included 31 DAs and employing GPs from 29 small office-based practices in Germany. Patients with CHF received either case management (n = 99) consisting of telephone monitoring and home visits or usual care (n = 100) for 12 months. We obtained clinical data, health care utilisation data, and patient-reported data on generic and disease-specific quality of life (QoL, SF-36 and KCCQ), CHF self-care (EHFScBS) and on quality of care (PACIC-5A). To compare between groups at follow-up, we performed analyses of covariance and logistic regression models.ResultsBaseline measurement showed high guideline adherence to evidence-based pharmacotherapy and good patient self-care: Patients received angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (or angiotensin-2 receptor antagonists) in 93.8% and 95%, and betablockers in 72.2% and 84%, and received both in combination in 68% and 80% of cases respectively. EHFScBS scores (SD) were 25.4 (8.4) and 25.0 (7.1). KCCQ overall summary scores (SD) were 65.4 (22.6) and 64.7 (22.7). We found low hospital admission and mortality rates. EHFScBS scores (-3.6 [-5.7;-1.6]) and PACIC and 5A scores (both 0.5, [0.3;0.7/0.8]) improved in favour of CM but QoL scores showed no significant group differences (Physical/Mental SF-36 summary scores/KCCQ-os [95%CI]: -0.3 [-3.0;2.5]/-0.1 [-3.4;3.1]/1.7 [-3.0;6.4]).ConclusionsIn this sample, with little room for improvement regarding evidence-based pharmacotherapy and CHF self-care, case management showed no improved health outcomes or health care utilisation. However, case management significantly improved performance and key intermediate outcomes. Our study provides evidence for the feasibility of the case management model.Trial registration numberISRCTN30822978
BackgroundThe implementation of a bachelor degree in “Interprofessional Health Care” at the University of Heidelberg, Germany has fostered the need to evaluate the impact of this innovative programme. The Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) was developed by Parsell and Bligh (1999) to assess student’s attitudes towards interprofessional education. The RIPLS consists of 19 items and four subscales were identified by McFadyen (J Interprof Care19:595–603, 2005): “teamwork and collaboration”, “negative professional identity”, “positive professional identity” and “roles and responsibilities”. The RIPLS has been translated into a number of languages and used in a variety of different educational settings. A German version of the RIPLS was not available. Aim of the study was the translation of the RIPLS into German and testing of internal consistency.MethodsThe RIPLS was translated to German according to international guidelines and its psychometric properties were assessed in two online surveys with two different samples a) health care graduates and b) health care students. Descriptive analysis (mean, SD, corrected item-total correlation) of the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale – German (RIPLS-D) was performed for item characteristics and Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for internal consistency of overall and subscales of the RIPLS-D.ResultsEach sample consisted of 76 datasets. Reliability for the RIPLS-D overall scale was 0.83 in both samples. The subscales displayed internal consistency between 0.42 and 0.88. Corrected item-total correlation showed low values in two subscales in the sample of graduates.ConclusionsWhile the overall RIPLS-D scale is reliable, several subscales showed low values and should be used with caution to measure readiness for interprofessional learning in the German health care context. Internal consistency of the instrument does not seem to be given in health care professionals at different stages of their professional career. In particular the sub-scale “roles and responsibilities” was problematic. For these reasons, the RIPLS-D cannot be recommended for use to assess this concept.
BackgroundReliable information regarding patient knowledge of home remedies and the types of health problems patients use them for is scarce. Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence indicates that home remedies are used by patients for managing minor health problems and that this can be sufficient for symptom management while the body recovers from minor health problems. The aim of the presented study was to explore patient use of home remedies in Germany.MethodsA questionnaire was developed and pretested in a pilot study phase. The revised questionnaire was comprised of questions about general knowledge and experienced efficiency of home remedies, the use of home remedies for common health problems and socio-demographic data. Patients were recruited via randomly selected addresses of general practitioners (GPs) in three regions of Germany (Heidelberg, Erfurt and Hanover and surrounding areas). The questionnaire was handed out in the waiting area of GP practices. The data was analyzed descriptively.Results480 of 592 patients from 37 GP practices were included, according to a response rate of 81%. Based on the survey results, home remedies were widely known and used by about 80% of our respondents (on average 22 different home remedies were used per person). The most frequently used home remedies were steam-inhalation, hot lemon drink, honey, chamomile tea and chicken soup. 80% of respondents tried home remedies before pharmaceutical options. Information about home remedies was most commonly gained from family members, rather than from written guides, media or GPs.ConclusionsThese results provide an initial overview on the use of home remedies from the patient’s perspective in a German context. Bearing in mind the high use of home remedies that was reported by patients in the study, it is highly likely that GPs in Germany may need to advise patients on their use of home remedies during consultations. To this end, given the scarcity of reliable information on home remedies, further research is needed.
OBJECTIVEThis study examined the effectiveness of the German diabetes disease management program (DMP) for patients with varying numbers of other medical conditions with respect to their health-related quality of life (HRQoL).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA questionnaire, including the HRQoL-measured EQ-5D, was mailed to a random sample of 3,546 patients with type 2 diabetes (59.3% female). The EQ-5D score was analyzed by grouping patients according to those on a DMP and those receiving routine care.RESULTSThe analysis showed that participation in the DMP (P < 0.001), the number of other medical conditions (P < 0.001), and the interaction between the DMP and the number of other conditions (P < 0.05) had a significant impact on the EQ-5D score.CONCLUSIONSOur findings suggest that the number of other medical conditions may have a negative impact on the HRQoL of patients with type 2 diabetes. The results demonstrate that the German DMP for type 2 diabetes may help counterbalance this effect.
Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes are likely to have comorbid conditions which represent a high burden for patients and a challenge for primary care physicians. The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to assess the impact of additional comorbidities on quality of life within a large sample of patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.