German ambulatory care physicians' perspectives on clinical guidelines – a national survey

BACKGROUND: There has been little systematic research about the extent to which German physicians accept or reject the concept and practice of a) clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and b) evidence based medicine (EBM) The aim of this study was to investigate German office-based physicians' perspective on CPGs and EBM and their application in medical practice. METHODS: Structured national telephone survey of ambulatory care physicians, four thematic blocks with 21 questions (5 point Likert scale). 511 office-based general practitioners and specialists. Main outcome measures were the application of Clinical Practice Guidelines in daily practice, preference for sources of guidelines and degree of knowledge and acceptance of EBM. In the data analysis Pearson's correlation coefficient was used for explorative analysis of correlations. The comparison of groups was performed by Student's t-test. Chi(2 )test was used to investigate distribution of two or more categorical variables. RESULTS: Of the total study population 55.3% of physicians reported already using guidelines in the treatment of patients. Physicians in group practices (GrP) as well as general practitioners (GP) agreed significantly more with the usefulness of guidelines as a basis for patient care than doctors in single practices (SP) or specialists (S) (Student's t-test mean GP 2.57, S 2.84, p < 0.01; mean GrP 2.55, SP 2.80, p < 0.05). 33.1% of the participants demonstrated a strong rejection to the application of guidelines in patient care. Acceptance of guidelines from a governmental institution was substantially lower than from physician networks or medical societies (36.2% vs. 53.4% vs. 62.0%). 73.8% of doctors interpret EBM as a combination of scientific research and individual medical knowledge; 80% regard EBM as the best basis for patient care. CONCLUSION: Despite a majority of physicians accepting and applying CPGs a large group remains that is critical and opposed to the utilization of CPGs in daily practice and to the concept of EBM in general. Doctors in single practice and specialists appear to be more critical than physicians in group practices and GPs. Future research is needed to evaluate the willingness to acquire necessary knowledge and skills for the promotion and routine application of CPGs

Are German patients burdened by the practice charge for physician visits ('Praxisgebuehr')? A cross sectional analysis of socio-economic and health related factors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In 2004, a practice charge for physician visits ('Praxisgebuehr') was implemented in the German health care system, mainly in order to reduce expenditures of sickness funds by reducing outpatient physician visits. In the statutory sickness funds, all adults now have to pay € 10 at their first physician visit in each 3 month period, except for vaccinations and preventive services. This study looks at the effect of this new patient fee on delaying or avoiding physician visits, with a special emphasis on different income groups.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Six representative surveys (conducted between 2004 and 2006) of the Bertelsmann Healthcare Monitor were analysed, comprising 7,769 women and men aged 18 to 79 years. The analyses are based on stratified analyses and logistic regression models, including a focus on the subgroup having a chronic disease.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two results can be highlighted. First, avoiding or delaying a physician visit due to this fee is seen most often among younger and healthier adults. Second, those in the lowest income group are much more affected in this way than the better of. The multivariate analysis in the subgroup of respondents having a chronic disease shows, for example, that this reaction is reported 2.45 times more often in the lowest income group than in the highest income group (95% CI: 1.90–3.15).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The analyses indicate that the effects of the practice charge differ by socio-economic group. It would be important to assess these effects in more detail, especially the effects on health care quality and health outcomes. It can be assumed, however, that avoiding or delaying physician visits jeopardizes both, and that health inequalities are increasing due to the practice charge.</p

Solidarität in der Krankenversicherung | Was unterscheidet freiwillig GKV-Versicherte von anderen Gruppen der gesetzlichen und privaten Krankenversicherung?

Solidarity in German Health Insurance Differences Between Voluntary Members of the Social Health Insurance System and other Groups in Public and Private Health InsuranceSolidarity is a core principle of the statutory health insurance system in Germany. Using cross-sectional surveys from the Bertelsmann Healthcare Monitor, this study analyses the acceptance of different dimensions of solidarity in several population subgroups. The vast majority of the population agrees with the principles of solidarity, and there have not been significant changes over time. Within private health insurance, amongst those who do not work as civil servants (Beamte), slightly weaker support for solidarity could be observed, while their self-reported health status was relatively better. For civil servants (Beamte), financial incentives might dominate the decision of selecting health insurance in the public or private system

Einflussfaktoren auf den Geburtsmodus: Kaiserschnitt vs. Spontangeburt

Kolip P. Einflussfaktoren auf den Geburtsmodus: Kaiserschnitt vs. Spontangeburt. In: Böcken J, Braun B, Repschläger U, eds. Gesundheitsmonitor 2012. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung; 2012: 182-204

Auf der Suche nach der Zielgruppe – Das Informationsverhalten über Gesundheit und Krankheit als Grundlage erfolgreicher Gesundheitskommunikation

Baumann E. Auf der Suche nach der Zielgruppe – Das Informationsverhalten über Gesundheit und Krankheit als Grundlage erfolgreicher Gesundheitskommunikation. In: Böcken J, Braun B, Amhof R, Schnee M, eds. Gesundheitsmonitor 2006. Gesundheitsversorgung und Gestaltungsoptionen aus der Perspektive von Bevölkerung und Ärzten. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung; 2006: 117-153

Erwartungen der GKV-Versicherten an die Zukunft des Gesundheitswesens 2001 bis 2008: Trends, soziale und politische Faktoren

Gerlinger T, Braun B. Erwartungen der GKV-Versicherten an die Zukunft des Gesundheitswesens 2001 bis 2008: Trends, soziale und politische Faktoren. In: Böcken J, Braun B, Amhof R, eds. Gesundheitsmonitor 2008: Gesundheitsversorgung und Gestaltungsoptionen aus der Perspektive der Bevölkerung. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung; 2008: 270-293

Effects of cost sharing on seeking outpatient care : a propensity-matched study in Germany and Switzerland

Background: Several studies have assessed the effect of cost sharing on health service utilization (HSU), mostly in the USA. Results are heterogeneous, showing different effects. Whereas previous studies compared insurants within one health care system but different modes of insurance, we aimed at comparing two different health care systems in Europe: Germany and Switzerland. Furthermore, we assessed the impact of cost sharing depending on socio-demographic factors as well as health status. Methods: Two representative samples of 5197 Swiss insurants with and 5197 German insurants without cost sharing were used to assess the independent association between cost sharing and the use of outpatient care. To minimize confounding, we performed crosssectional analyses between propensity score matched Swiss and German insurants. We investigated subgroups according to health and socio-economic status to assess a potential social gradient in HSU. Results: We found a significant association between health insurance scheme and the use of outpatient services. German insurants without cost sharing (visit rate: 4.8 per year) consulted a general practitioner or specialist more frequently than Swiss insurants with cost sharing (visit rate: 3.0 per year; P < 0.01). Subgroup analyses showed that vulnerable populations were differently affected by cost sharing. In the group of respondents with poor health and low socio-economic status, the cost-sharing effect was strongest. Conclusion: Cost-sharing models reduce HSU. The challenge is to create cost-sharing models which do not preclude vulnerable populations from seeking essential health care