BackgroundThis methodological paper describes the integration of the ‘European Health Interview Survey wave 2’ (EHIS 2) into the ‘German Health Update’ 2014/2015 (GEDA 2014/2015-EHIS).MethodsGEDA 2014/2015-EHIS is a cross-sectional health survey. A two-stage stratified cluster sampling approach was used to recruit persons aged 15 years and older with permanent residence in Germany. Two different modes of data collection were used, self-administered web questionnaire and self-administered paper questionnaire. The survey instrument implemented the EHIS 2 modules on health status, health care use, health determinants and social background variables and additional national questions. Data processing was conducted according to the quality and validation rules specified by Eurostat. ResultsIn total, 24,824 questionnaires were completed. The response rate was 27.6%. The two-stage cluster sample method seems to have been successful in achieving a sample with high representativeness. The final micro data file was inspected, approved and certified by Eurostat. Access to micro data of the EHIS 2 can be provided by Eurostat via research contract and to the GEDA 2014/2015-EHIS public use file by the Research Data Centre of the Robert Koch Institute. First EHIS 2 results are available at the Eurostat website.ConclusionsIntegrating a multinational health survey into an existing national health monitoring system was a challenge in Germany. The national survey methodology for conducting the survey had to be further developed in order to meet the overarching goal of harmonizing the health information from national statistical offices and public health research institutes across the European Union. The harmonized EHIS 2 data source will profoundly impact international public health research in the near future. The next EHIS wave 3 will be conducted around 2019.

The German Health Update (GEDA) study is one component of the recently established nationwide health monitoring system administered by the Robert Koch Institute. The repeated cross-sectional GEDA surveys aim to provide current data on health and disease, health determinants and time trends in health and morbidity in the adult population in Germany. This forms the basis for planning requirements and recommendations for public health policy.Between 2008 and 2013, three GEDA waves were carried out, involving a total of 62,606 computer-assisted telephone interviews with adults in Germany, living in private household, and reachable via landline.A core set of indicators was used in all GEDA waves to gather information on subjective health and health-related quality of life, chronic diseases, injuries, impairment to health and disabilities, mental health, health behaviours, social determinants, use of health services and socio-demographic characteristics.The data from the GEDA surveys are provided for public use and epidemiological research. After submitting an application form, the data are accessible from: [http://www.rki.de/EN/Content/Health_Monitoring/Public_Use_Files/public_use_file_node.htm].

BackgroundOlder adults and individuals with underlying chronic diseases are at increased risk of developing influenza-related complications and are target groups for seasonal influenza vaccination in many countries. In Germany, an annual national information campaign is conducted to increase influenza vaccination uptake in the target groups. However, data are lacking on knowledge and attitudes toward influenza vaccination among older adults and those with chronic diseases. The present study aimed to (i) estimate influenza vaccination uptake for the 2012/13 and 2013/14 seasons, (ii) assess knowledge and attitudes about influenza vaccination, and (iii) identify factors associated with vaccination uptake in two risk groups.MethodsBetween March and June 2014, we conducted a nationwide cross-sectional survey in adults (≥18 years) living in Germany using computer-assisted telephone interviewing. We calculated weighted vaccination coverage rates in two at-risk groups. Group 1 comprised participants aged 18–59 years with underlying chronic diseases. Group 2 comprised participants aged 60+, irrespective of underlying disease. We used univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify associations between influenza vaccination uptake and sociodemographic characteristics, and to evaluate attitudes and knowledge.ResultsIn total, 1,519 interviews were conducted. Seasonal influenza vaccination uptake in people with underlying chronic diseases aged 18–59 years was 24 % in 2012/2013 and 23 % in 2013/2014. In older adults, uptake was 50 % and 49 % in 2012/13 and 2013/14 respectively. There were considerable vaccination-related knowledge gaps among respondents. For example, about half of the participants who aged ≥60 years and/or suffered from underlying chronic diseases believed that influenza vaccination could cause influenza. The most commonly stated reasons for not being immunized were mistrust of the vaccination (22 %) and the perception that influenza is not dangerous (21 %). For both groups, vaccination uptake was independently associated with sex, perceived severity of influenza, perceived vaccination effectiveness, and the perceived likelihood or severity of vaccination side effects. For older adults, additional factors influencing vaccination uptake were age, underlying chronic diseases, and recent advice through physician consultation.ConclusionsInfluenza vaccination coverage rates in Germany remain low. Individual perceptions regarding harms and benefits are crucial in the decision-making process. Communication strategies should focus on improving understanding and perception of personal risks arising from the disease and the vaccination.

Social network recruitment permits fast and convenient access to young people. Sample characteristics can be manipulated by adjusting targeting strategies. There is further need for promoting knowledge of HPV vaccination among young women. Physicians have a major role in the vaccination decision-making process of young women.

BackgroundDespite the major public health impact of diabetes, recent population-based data regarding its prevalence and comorbidity are sparse.MethodsThe prevalence and comorbidity of diabetes mellitus were analyzed in a nationally representative sample (N = 9133) of the non-institutionalized German adult population aged 50 years and older. Information on physician-diagnosed diabetes and 20 other chronic health conditions was collected as part of the national telephone health interview survey ‘German Health Update (GEDA)’ 2009. Overall, 51.2% of contacted persons participated. Among persons with diabetes, diabetes severity was defined according to the type and number of diabetes-concordant conditions: no diabetes-concordant condition (grade 1); hypertension and/or hyperlipidemia only (grade 2); one comorbidity likely to represent diabetes-related micro- or macrovascular end-organ damage (grade 3); several such comorbidities (grade 4). Determinants of diabetes severity were analyzed by multivariable ordinal regression.ResultsThe 12-month prevalence of diabetes was 13.6% with no significant difference between men and women. Persons with diabetes had a significantly higher prevalence and average number of diabetes-concordant as well as diabetes-discordant comorbidities than persons without diabetes. Among persons with diabetes, 10.2%, 46.8%, 35.6% and 7.4% were classified as having severity grade 1–4, respectively. Determinants of diabetes severity included age (cumulative odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.07, per year) and number of discordant comorbidities (1.40, 1.25-1.55). With respect to specific discordant comorbidities, diabetes severity was correlated to depression (2.15, 1.29-3.56), respiratory disease (2.75, 1.72-4.41), musculoskeletal disease (1.53, 1.06-2.21), and severe hearing impairment (3.00, 1.21-7.41).ConclusionsDiabetes is highly prevalent in the non-institutionalized German adult population 50 years and older. Diabetes comorbidities including diabetes-concordant and diabetes-discordant conditions need to be considered in epidemiological studies, in order to monitor disease burden and quality of diabetes care. Definitional standards of diabetes severity need to be refined and consented.