No abstract

During the COVID-19 shutdown phase in Germany, universities stopped presence teaching and students had to turn to digital instruction. To examine their capability to cope with the changed learning situation, we assessed how basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration, motivational regulation, vitality, and self-efficacy of 228 German biology-teaching students (75% female) relate to their chronotype and personality (Big Five). Specifically, we were interested in possible effects of chronotype and personality dimensions on variables related to successful remote learning. Since the pandemic and remote learning will accompany teaching and learning at university in 2021, predictors of successful remote learning need to be identified to support student learning optimally in digital learning environments. In our study, morning-oriented, conscientious, and open students with low neuroticism seem to better cope with the shutdown environment due to vitality, self-efficacy, and partly their self-determined motivation. Moreover, our findings implicate students might need different support depending on their chronotype and personality during the digital learning phase.

BackgroundGovernmental funding support is seen as a prerequisite for the growth of research in general practice. Several funding programs in the amount of € 13.2 Mio were introduced in Germany from 2002 to February 2012. We aim to provide an overview of publications reporting original data and systematic reviews from German academic family medicine published between 2000 and 2010.MethodsPublications were identified by searching the database Scopus and screening publication lists of family medicine divisions or institutes. Papers had to report original primary research studies or systematic reviews; at least one of the authors had to be affiliated to a German academic family medicine division or institute.Results794 articles were included. The number of publications increased steadily starting from 107 in the period from 2000 to 2003, to 273 from 2004 to 2007, and finally to 414 from 2008 to 2010. Less than 25% were published in English in the first period. This proportion increased to 60.6% from 2008 to 2010. Articles published in a journal without impact factor decreased from 59.8% to 31.9%. Nevertheless, even in the most recent period only 31.6% of all articles were published in a journal with an impact factor above 2. The median impact factor increased from 0 in the first period to 1.2 in the last.ConclusionsThe output of original research publications from academic research divisions and institutes for general practice in Germany greatly increased during the last decade. However, professionalism of German primary care research still needs to be developed.

No abstract