BackgroundInformation-seeking behaviour is necessary to improve knowledge on diabetes therapy and complications. Combined with other self-management skills and autonomous handling of the disease, it is essential for achieving treatment targets. However, a systematic review addressing this topic is lacking. The aims of this systematic review were to identify and analyse existing knowledge of information-seeking behaviour: (1) types information-seeking behaviour, (2) information sources, (3) the content of searched information, and (4) associated variables that may affect information-seeking behaviour.MethodsThe systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) requirements. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CCMed, ERIC, Journals@OVID, Deutsches Ärzteblatt and Karlsruher virtueller Katalog (KvK) databases were searched. Publications dealing with information-seeking behaviour of people with diabetes mellitus published up to June 2015 were included. A forward citation tracking was performed in September 2016 and June 2017. Additionally, an update of the two main databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL) was conducted, considering studies published up to July 2017. Studies published in languages other than English or German were excluded, as well as letters, short reports, editorials, comments and discussion papers. A study selection and the critical appraisal of the selected studies were performed independently by two reviewers. A third reviewer was consulted if any disagreement was found. Data extraction and content analysis were performed using selected dimensions of Wilson’s ‘model of information behaviour’.ResultsTwenty-six studies were included. Five ‘types of information-seeking behaviour’ were identified, e.g. passive and active search. The ‘Internet’ and ‘healthcare professionals’ were the most frequently reported sources. ‘Diet’, ‘complications’, ‘exercise’ and ‘medications and pharmacological interactions’ were the most frequently identified content of information. Seven main categories including associated variables were identified, e.g. ‘socioeconomic’, ‘duration of DM’, and ‘lifestyle’.ConclusionThe systematic review provides a valuable overview of available knowledge on the information-seeking behaviour of people with diabetes mellitus, although there are only a few studies. There was a high heterogeneity regarding the research question, design, methods and participants. Although the Internet is often used to seek information, health professionals still play an important role in supporting their patients’ information-seeking behaviour. Specific needs of people with diabetes must be taken into consideration.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016037312 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0602-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to identify and analyse currently available knowledge on information needs of people with diabetes mellitus, also considering possible differences between subgroups and associated factors.MethodsTwelve databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched up until June 2015. Publications that addressed self-reported information needs of people with diabetes mellitus were included. Each study was assessed by using critical appraisal tools, e.g. from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Extraction and content analysis were performed systematically.ResultsIn total, 1993 publications were identified and 26 were finally included. Nine main categories of information needs were identified, including ‘treatment-process’, ‘course of disease’, ‘abnormalities of glucose metabolism’ and ‘diabetes through the life cycle’. Differences between patient subgroups, such as type of diabetes or age, were sparsely analysed. Some studies analysed associations between information needs and factors such as participation preferences or information seeking. They found, for example, that information needs on social support or life tasks were associated with information seeking in Internet forums.ConclusionInformation needs in people with diabetes mellitus, appear to be high, yet poorly investigated. Research is needed regarding differences between diverse diabetes populations, including gender aspects or changes in information needs during the disease course.Systematic review registrationThe review protocol has been registered at Prospero (CRD42015029610).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0690-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesThis study aimed to identify: (1) information needs of people with recently diagnosed type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM); (2) information needs within different subgroups; and (3) factors associated with information needs concerning DM such as current level of information, health-related quality of life or participation preferences.DesignA mixed-method approach combining quantitative and qualitative methods was used. Information needs for different topics and estimated associated factors were described using logistic regression models. Additionally, a qualitative content analysis was performed.SettingMonocentre study.ParticipantsInformation needs were assessed and analysed in 138 consecutive participants with DM who took part in the German Diabetes Study (54% type 2 diabetes, 64% male, mean age 46.3±12.3 years, known diabetes duration <1 year).ResultsMost participants displayed a need for information in all topics provided, especially in diabetes research (86%) and treatment/therapy (80%). Regarding those topics, participants wished for information regarding new treatments that simplify their everyday life. In general, participants preferred topics that focus on the management or handling of DM over topics related to clinical factors of DM, such as causes and complications. A low current level of information and treatment with antihyperglycaemic medication were significantly associated with higher information needs, and diabetes-related comorbidity and higher mental component summary score in the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) with lower information needs.ConclusionPeople with recently diagnosed DM display high information needs, which differ according to the current level of information, mode of diabetes treatment, diabetes-related comorbidity and mental component summary score in the SF-36. There appears to be a preference for information, which can help to simplify life with diabetes and for information that corresponds to their level of knowledge. This should be considered in patient information activities.Trial registration number NCT01055093.

The aim of this systematic scoping review was to identify and analyze indicators that address implementation quality or success in health care services and to deduce recommendations for further indicator development. This review was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Manual and the PRISMA Statement. CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched. Studies or reviews published between August 2008 and 2018 that reported monitoring of the quality or the implementation success in health care services by using indicators based on continuous variables and proportion-based, ratio-based, standardized ratio–based, or rate-based variables or indices were included. The records were screened by title and abstract, and the full-text articles were also independently double-screened by 3 reviewers for eligibility. In total, 4376 records were identified that resulted in 10 eligible studies, including 67 implementation indicators. There was heterogeneity regarding the theoretical backgrounds, designs, objectives, settings, and implementation indicators among the publications. None of the indicators addressed the implementation outcomes of appropriateness or sustainability. Service implementation efficiency was identified as an additional outcome. Achieving consensus in framing implementation outcomes and indicators will be a new challenge in health services research. Considering the new debates regarding health care complexity, the further development of indicators based on complementary qualitative and quantitative approaches is needed.

Indicators based on German administrative data deviate widely from indicators based on clinical data. Therefore, hospitals should be cautious to use indicators based on administrative data for quality assurance. However, some might be useful for case findings and quality improvement. The precision of the evaluated indicators needs further development to detect AEs by the valid use of administrative data.

BackgroundStudies indicate that people with dementia do not receive the same amount of analgesia after a hip or pelvic fracture compared to those without cognitive impairment. However, there is no systematic review that shows to what extent drug-based pain management is performed for people with dementia following a hip or pelvic fracture.The aim of this systematic review was to identify and analyse studies that investigate drug-based pain management for people with dementia with a hip or pelvic fracture in all settings. Treatment could be surgical or conservative. We also analysed study designs, methods and variables, as well as which assessments were applied to measure pain management and mental status.Method/designThe development of this systematic review protocol was guided by the PRISMA-P requirements, which were taken into consideration during the review procedures. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Knowledge and ScienceDirect were searched. Studies published up to January 2016 were included. The data extraction, content and quantitative descriptive analysis were carried out systematically, followed by a critical appraisal.ResultsEight of the 13 included studies focusing on patient data showed that people with dementia received less drug-based pain management than people without cognitive impairment. Four studies based on surveys of healthcare professionals stated that cognitive impairment is a major barrier for effective pain management. There was heterogeneity regarding the assessment of the mental status and the pain assessment of the patients. The assessment of the drugs administered in all of the studies working with patient data was achieved through chart reviews.ConclusionPeople with dementia do not seem to receive the same amount of opioid analgesics after hip fracture as people without cognitive impairment. There is need to enhance pain assessment and management for these patients. Future research should pay more attention to the use of the appropriate items for assessing cognitive impairment and pain in people with dementia.Trial registrationThis systematic review was registered at Prospero (CRD42016037309); on 11 April 2016, and the systematic review protocol was published (Syst Rev. 5(1):1, 2016).

IntroductionSurvivors of polytrauma experience long-term and short-term burden that influences their lives. The patients’ view of relevant short-term and long-term outcomes should be captured in instruments that measure quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after a polytrauma. The aim of this systematic review is to (1) collect instruments that assess PROs (quality of life, social participation and activities of daily living) during follow-up after polytrauma, (2) describe the instruments’ application (eg, duration of period of follow-up) and (3) investigate other relevant PROs that are also assessed in the included studies (pain, depression, anxiety and cognitive function).Methods and analysisThe systematic review protocol is developed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be searched. Keywords, for example, ‘polytrauma’, ‘multiple trauma’, ‘quality of life’, ‘activities of daily living’ or ‘pain’ will be used. Publications published between January 2005 and the most recent date (currently: August 2016) will be included. In order to present the latest possible results, an update of the search is conducted before publication. The data extraction and a content analysis will be carried out systematically. A critical appraisal will be performed.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017060825.

No abstract