Dataset Information

Digitization and Health in Germany: Cross-sectional Nationwide Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Digital technologies are shaping medicine and public health.

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes toward and the use of digital technologies for health-related purposes using a nationwide survey.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study using a panel sample of internet users selected from the general population living in Germany. Responses to a survey with 28 items were collected using computer-assisted telephone interviews conducted in October 2020. The items were divided into four topics: (1) general attitudes toward digitization, (2) COVID-19 pandemic, (3) physical activity, and (4) perceived digital health (eHealth) literacy measured with the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS; sum score of 8=lowest to 40=highest perceived eHealth literacy). The data were analyzed in IBM-SPSS24 using relative frequencies. Three univariate multiple regression analyses (linear or binary logistic) were performed to investigate the associations among the sociodemographic factors (age, gender, education, and household income) and digital technology use.

Results

The participants included 1014 internet users (n=528, 52.07% women) aged 14 to 93 years (mean 54, SD 17). Among all participants, 66.47% (674/1014) completed up to tertiary (primary and secondary) education and 45.07% (457/1017) reported a household income of up to 3500 Euro/month (1 Euro=US $1.18). Over half (579/1014, 57.10%) reported having used digital technologies for health-related purposes. The majority (898/1014, 88.56%) noted that digitization will be important for therapy and health care, in the future. Only 25.64% (260/1014) reported interest in smartphone apps for health promotion/prevention and 42.70% (433/1014) downloaded the COVID-19 contact-tracing app. Although 52.47% (532/1014) reported that they come across inaccurate digital information on the COVID-19 pandemic, 78.01% (791/1014) were confident in their ability to recognize such inaccurate information. Among those who use digital technologies for moderate physical activity (n=220), 187 (85.0%) found such technologies easy to use and 140 (63.6%) reported using them regularly (at least once a week). Although the perceived eHealth literacy was high (eHEALS mean score 31 points, SD 6), less than half (43.10%, 400/928) were confident in using digital information for health decisions. The use of digital technologies for health was associated with higher household income (odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% CI 1.11-1.47). The use of digital technologies for physical activity was associated with younger age (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.96) and more education (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.46). A higher perceived eHealth literacy score was associated with younger age (β=-.22, P<.001), higher household income (β=.21, P<.001), and more education (β=.14, P<.001).

Conclusions

Internet users in Germany expect that digitization will affect preventive and therapeutic health care in the future. The facilitators and barriers associated with the use of digital technologies for health warrant further research. A gap exists between high confidence in the perceived ability to evaluate digital information and low trust in internet-based information on the COVID-19 pandemic and health decisions.

SUBMITTER: De Santis KK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8612128 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The association between burnout and patient safety has been analyzed in many studies for nurses, physicians, and residents. However, studies concerning prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) workers are limited, although they are particularly under risk for emotional stress. This study aims to descriptively analyze the overall degree of burnout among EMS-workers, and potential adverse events that might harm patients as well as the relationship between burnout and perceived safety outcomes for EMS-workers in Germany. METHODS:EMS-workers were recruited via German EMS-journals, social media and a professional association to participate in an online survey. The questionnaire includes the ´Maslach Burnout Inventory´ (MBI), the 'Emergency Medical Services Safety Inventory' (EMS-SI), and items about job satisfaction and the individual person. Data was descriptively analyzed by calculating frequencies, means, percentages and Pearson correlation coefficients. The association between burnout and patient safety was analyzed using linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS:A total of n = 1101 questionnaires were considered for data analysis. The vast majority of participants were male, younger than 40 years old, and full-time employees with an EMS-experience of 12 years on average. Between 19.9 and 40% of the participants showed a high degree of burnout in one of the burnout dimensions. Safety compromising behavior was the outcome measure with the highest percentage of participants reporting a negative outcome measure. The dimensions emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were positively associated with the safety outcomes injury and safety compromising behavior. Additionally, experiences, job satisfaction and the intention to leave the current job were significantly associated with the outcome measures. CONCLUSION:This is the first study that examines the association between the degree of burnout and patient safety for EMS-workers. The results suggest that an expansion of psychological support for EMS-workers should be considered. Further research should concentrate on the complex relations between working conditions, burnout and patient safety.

Project description:BackgroundOsteopathy is a type of complementary medicine based on specific manual techniques. In many countries, including Germany, the profession is not officially regulated, and evidence for the effectiveness of osteopathy is insufficient for most diseases. Nevertheless, many health insurances in Germany offer reimbursement for therapy costs, if osteopathy is recommended by a physician. This cross-sectional survey of German general practitioners (GPs) explored beliefs and attitudes towards osteopathic medicine and described their daily interactions with it.MethodsA random sample of 1000 GPs from all federal states was surveyed by mail using a self-designed questionnaire. We collected data on sociodemographics, personal experiences with osteopathy, and attitudes and expectations towards osteopathy. In particular, participants were asked about indications for osteopathic treatment and their beliefs about its effectiveness for different patient groups and diagnoses. A self-designed score was used to estimate general attitudes towards osteopathy and identify factors correlated with greater openness. Additionally, we performed logistic regression to reveal factors associated with the frequency of recommending osteopathy to patients.ResultsResponse rate was 34.4%. 46.5% of participants were women, and the median age was 56.0 years. 91.3% of GPs had referred patients to an osteopath, and 88.0% had recommended osteopathy to their patients. However, 57.5% acknowledged having little or no knowledge about osteopathy. Most frequent reasons for a recommendation were spinal column disorders (46.2%), other complaints of the musculoskeletal system (18.2%) and headaches (9.8%). GPs estimated the highest benefit for chronically ill and middle-aged adults. Female gender (OR 2.09; 95%CI 1.29-3.38) and personal treatment experiences (OR 5.14; 95%CI 2.72-9.72) were independently positively associated with more frequent treatment recommendation.ConclusionGPs in Germany have frequent contact with osteopathy, and the vast majority have recommended osteopathic treatment to some extent in their practice, with foci and opinions comparable to other Western countries. The discrepancy between GPs making frequent referrals for osteopathic treatment while self-assessing to have little knowledge about it demonstrates need for intensified research on the collaboration with osteopaths and how to best integrate osteopathic treatments. Our results may help to focus future effectiveness studies on most relevant clinical conditions in general practice.

Project description:BackgroundPalliative care in Germany is divided into general (GPC) and specialised palliative care (SPC). Although palliative care will become more important in the care sector in future, there is a large knowledge gab, especially with regard to GPC. The aim of this study was to identify and compare the burdens, resources, health and wellbeing of nurses working in GPC and SPC. Such information will be helpful for developing prevention programs in order to reduce burdens and to strengthen resources of nurses.MethodsIn 2017, a nationwide cross-sectional survey was conducted. In total, 437 nurses in GPC and 1316 nurses in SPC completed a questionnaire containing parts of standardised instruments, which included parts of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the Resilience Scale (RS-13) Questionnaire, a single question about back pain from the health survey conducted by the Robert Koch Institute as well as self-developed questions. The differences in the variables between GPC and SPC nurses were compared.ResultsSPC nurses reported higher emotional demands as well as higher burdens due to nursing care and the care of relatives while GPC nurses stated higher quantitative demands, i.e. higher workload. SPC nurses more often reported organisational and social resources that were helpful in dealing with the demands of their work. Regarding health, GPC nurses stated a poorer health status and reported chronic back pain as well as a major depressive disorder more frequently than SPC nurses. Furthermore, GPC nurses reported a higher intention to leave the profession compared to SPC nurses.ConclusionsThe findings of the present study indicate that SPC could be reviewed as the best practice example for nursing care in Germany. The results may be used for developing target group specific prevention programs for improving health and wellbeing of nurses taking the differences between GPC and SPC into account. Finally, interventional and longitudinal studies should be conducted in future to determine causality in the relationship of burdens, resources, health and wellbeing.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR) systems have been shown to be associated with improvements in care processes, quality of care, and patient outcomes. EHR also has a crucial role in the delivery of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and is considered important for addressing SUD crises, including the opioid epidemic. However, little is known about the adoption of EHR in SUD treatment programs or the organizational-level factors associated with the adoption of EHR in SUD treatment.ObjectiveWe examined the adoption of EHR in SUD programs, with a focus on changes in adoption from 2014 to 2017, and identified organizational-level factors associated with EHR adoption.MethodsWe used data from the 2014 and 2017 National Drug Abuse Treatment System Surveys. Our analysis included 1027 SUD programs (531 in 2014 and 496 in 2017). We used chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively, to assess changes in EHR adoption, technology use, program, and client characteristics. We also investigated differences in characteristics and barriers to adoption by EHR adoption status (adopted EHR vs had not adopted or were planning to adopt EHR). We then conducted multivariate logistic regressions to examine internal and external factors associated with EHR adoption.ResultsThe adoption of EHR increased significantly from 57.6% (306/531) in 2014 to 69.2% (343/496) in 2017 (P<.001), showing that nearly one-third (153/496, 30.8%) of SUD programs had not yet adopted an EHR system by 2017. We identified a significant increase in technology use and ownership by a parent company (P=.01 and P<.001) and a decrease in the percentage of uninsured patients in 2017 (P<.001), compared to 2014. Our analysis further showed significant differences by adoption status for three major barriers to adoption: (1) start-up costs, (2) ongoing financial costs, and (3) privacy or security concerns (P<.001). Programs that used computerized scheduling (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.02, 95% CI 2.23-4.09) and billing systems (AOR 2.29, 95% CI 1.62-3.25) were more likely to adopt EHR. Similarly, ownership type, such as private nonprofit (AOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.31-2.65) and public (AOR 2.14, 95% CI 1.27-3.67), or interest in participating in a patient-centered medical home (AOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.29-2.92), were associated with an increased likelihood to adopt EHR. Overall, SUD programs were more likely to adopt an EHR system in 2017 compared to 2014 (AOR 1.44, 95% CI 1.07-1.94).ConclusionsOur findings highlighted that SUD programs may be on track to achieve widespread EHR adoption. However, there is a need for focused strategies, resources, and policies explicitly designed to systematically address barriers and tackle obstacles to expanding the adoption of EHR systems. These efforts must be holistic and address factors at multiple organizational levels.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent international guidelines on dyslipidemia are not concordant on various aspects of management. Also, there are no uniformly accepted Indian guidelines. We, therefore, performed a physician survey to understand lipid management practices in India.MethodsAn anonymous survey questionnaire was administered to gauge physicians' self-reported behavior regarding lipid management aspects. Results were expressed in terms of percentages based on the number of responses obtained.ResultsA total of 404 physicians participated in the survey. Eighty-eight percent respondents ordered a lipid profile before starting statin therapy, and 80% preferred to set lipid targets, though the tools used for calculating cardiovascular risk varied. Atorvastatin was preferred over rosuvastatin in primary prevention (72.9 vs. 32.4%), secondary prevention (54.6 vs. 46.7%), diabetic patients (56.3 vs. 40.3%) and post-ACS (78.3 vs. 34%). High-intensity statins were preferred by 73.7% of respondents in post-ACS cases. Fifty percent doctors chose not to use a statin in diabetic patients, irrespective of their LDL-C levels. The most preferred drug option for managing atherogenic dyslipidemia and moderate hypertriglyceridemia was statin-fibrate combination (55.1%) and fibrates (35.4%), respectively. Sixty-three percent doctors preferred to prescribe statins in patients with moderately high LDL-C and normal triglycerides, without CHD or CHD risk equivalents. Around 28% of doctors preferred not to use pharmacotherapy for managing isolated low HDL. Of the participants, 73% used fibrates in ?20% of their dyslipidemic patients, with fenofibrate being the most preferred (90.5%). Ezetimibe was mainly used in patients with uncontrolled LDL-C despite statin therapy (52.4% respondents). Most preferred approaches to manage statin intolerance included reducing statin dose (39%) and stopping and restarting statins at a lower dose (34.5%). Fifty-two percent of doctors chose not to alter pre-existing therapy in patients who had LDL-C levels at goal but elevated non-HDL-C levels.ConclusionThis is the first survey in India that provides useful insights into Indian physicians' self-reported perspectives on managing dyslipidemia in routine clinical practice. Despite concordance with the currently available guidelines in certain aspects, there is incongruence in managing specific dyslipidemia problems. Further continuing medical education and the development of evidence-based, India-specific lipid guidelines can help reduce some of these differences.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Relatively little knowledge is available to date about health literacy among the general population in Europe. It is important to gain insights into health literacy competences among the general population, as this might contribute to more effective health promotion and help clarify socio-economic disparities in health. This paper is part of the European Health Literacy Survey (HLS-EU). It aims to add to the body of theoretical knowledge about health literacy by measuring perceived difficulties with health information in various domains of health, looking at a number of competences. The definition and measure of health literacy is still topic of debate and hardly any instruments are available that are applicable for the general population. The objectives were to obtain an initial measure of health literacy in a sample of the general population in the Netherlands and to relate this measure to education, income, perceived social status, age, and sex. METHODS: The HLS-EU questionnaire was administered face-to-face in a sample of 925 Dutch adults, during July 2011. Perceived difficulties with the health literacy competences for accessing, understanding, appraising and applying information were measured within the domains of healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion. Multiple linear regression analyses were applied to explore the associations between health literacy competences and education, income, perceived social status, age, and sex. RESULTS: Perceived difficulties with health information and their association with demographic and socio-economic variables vary according to the competence and health domain addressed. Having a low level of education or a low perceived social status or being male were consistently found to be significantly related to relatively low health literacy scores, mainly for accessing and understanding health information. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived difficulties with health information vary between competences and domains of health. Health literacy competences are associated with indicators of socio-economic position and with the domain in which health information is provided.