26 research outputs found

    Ergebnisbericht der GeMSeHeCo-Studie: Gesundheitskompetenz und Barrieren während der Corona-Pandemie aus Sicht der Selbsthilfe

    Get PDF
    Hintergrund und Zielsetzung: Die Forschung zur Gesundheitskompetenz bei Menschen mit chronischer Erkrankung oder Behinderung gewinnt zunehmend an Bedeutung. Personen dieser vulnerablen Bevölkerungsgruppe gehören häufig einer Selbsthilfegruppe an. Die derzeitige Corona-Pandemie stellt große Herausforderungen an Menschen mit chronischer Erkrankung oder Behinderung insbesondere im Umgang mit gesundheitsbezogenen Informationen und im Zugang zum Gesundheitswesen. Ziel der GeMSeHeCo-Studie ist daher, Erfahrungen im Umgang mit analogen und digitalen Gesundheitsinformationen und das Informationssuchverhalten von Mitgliedern der Selbsthilfe zu erfassen. Auch stehen wahrgenommene Barrieren im Gesundheitswesen vor und während der Corona-Pandemie sowie die Rolle und Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten der Selbsthilfe bei der Suche nach Gesundheitsinformationen und Förderung der (digitalen) Gesundheitskompetenz der Mitglieder im Fokus. Methodik: Im Rahmen einer qualitativen Primärerhebung wurden bundesweit zwischen Juli bis Oktober 2020 telefonisch leitfadengestützte Interviews mit n=12 Mitgliedern von Selbsthilfegruppen für Menschen mit chronischer Erkrankung oder Behinderung sowie n=19 Vertreter*innen von Selbsthilfeorganisationen für Menschen mit chronischer Erkrankung oder Behinderung geführt. Die Interviews wurden basierend auf der qualitativen strukturierenden Inhaltsanalyse nach Kuckartz mittels der Software MAXQDA ausgewertet. Ergebnisse: Die Ergebnisse der Studie weisen auf heterogene Erfahrungen der Vertreter*innen der Selbsthilfe bezüglich der Gesundheitskompetenz ihrer Mitglieder hin. Langjährige Mitglieder weisen gute Kompetenzen im Umgang mit analogen und digitalen Gesundheitsinformationen auf. Wohingegen neue Mitglieder aus Sicht der Vertreter*innen der Selbsthilfe häufiger vor Herausforderungen beim Finden, Verstehen, Beurteilen und Anwenden von Informationen bezüglich der Corona-Pandemie stehen. Als Informationsquelle für Gesundheitsinformationen werden die Verwendung unterschiedlicher allgemeiner (bspw. Austausch mit Expert*innen unterschiedlicher Fach(arzt)disziplinen bei bspw. Kongressen, Vorträgen) und digitaler Quellen (bspw. Seminare im Onlineformat, Webseiten offizieller Stellen wie bspw. des Robert Koch-Instituts) angegeben. Die Suche nach gesundheitsbezogenen Informationen vor und nach dem Arztbesuch kann aus Sicht der Vertreter*innen der Selbsthilfe Auswirkungen auf den Besuch beim Arzt/bei der Ärztin haben. Als positive Auswirkung wird u. a. die Kommunikation auf Augenhöhe zwischen dem ärztlichen Personal und den Patienten*innen berichtet. Als negative Auswirkung wird die häufig fehlende Wertschätzung und Anerkennung der Informationssuche durch die Selbsthilfemitglieder von dem ärztlichen Personal genannt. Die Ergebnisse weisen auf strukturelle und finanzielle Barrieren im Gesundheitswesen sowie Zugangs- und Umweltbarrieren in der Gesundheitsversorgung vor und während der Corona-Pandemie hin. Die gegenseitige Unterstützung innerhalb der Selbsthilfegruppe und das Angebot von Hilfestellungen wurde als bedeutende Rolle der Selbsthilfe bei der Suche nach Gesundheitsinformationen genannt. Während der Corona-Pandemie wurden von den Vertreter*innen der Selbsthilfe Beratungen über Telefon oder Video sowie die digitale Bereitstellung und Diskussion von Gesundheitsinformationen als Alternative zu physischen Treffen und analogen Gesundheitsinformationen angeboten. Schlussfolgerung: Die Ergebnisse der GeMSeHeCo-Studie heben die Relevanz der Selbsthilfe bei der Förderung der Gesundheitskompetenz ihrer Mitglieder hervor. Während der Corona-Pandemie gilt es besonders auf die individuellen Bedürfnisse, Probleme und Wünsche der Mitglieder einzugehen. Um Menschen mit Beeinträchtigung auch in der Pandemie ausreichend Hilfestellungen im Umgang mit Gesundheitsinformationen anbieten und die Teilhabe an Gesundheit ermöglichen zu können, sind vermehrt digitale Angebote erforderlich. Für Personen innerhalb der Selbsthilfe, die aufgrund ihres Alters, ihrer technischen Ausstattung oder Sprachbarrieren (digitale) Gesundheitsinformationen nur eingeschränkt verstehen und durch webbasierte Angebote nicht erreicht werden können, bedarf es der Unterstützung durch die Selbsthilfe bspw. durch telefonische Kontaktaufnahme und die Übersetzung der erforderlichen Gesundheitsinformationen in bspw. Leichte oder andere Landessprachen

    Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

    Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

    The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

    Get PDF
    Aim The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. Methods This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. Results Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. Conclusion One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

    Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

    Get PDF
    This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

    The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

    Get PDF
    AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

    Offenes Abdomen 2009

    Full text link
    corecore