Inhaltliche Weiterentwicklung von Standards zur Erstellung evidenzbasierter Gesundheitsinformationen: Eine Bedarfserhebung und Priorisierung im EbM-Netzwerk

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Roland Brian Büchter , Martina Albrecht , Michael Grimm , Markus Seelig , Anke Steckelberg , Anne Christin Rahn
{"title":"Inhaltliche Weiterentwicklung von Standards zur Erstellung evidenzbasierter Gesundheitsinformationen: Eine Bedarfserhebung und Priorisierung im EbM-Netzwerk","authors":"Roland Brian Büchter ,&nbsp;Martina Albrecht ,&nbsp;Michael Grimm ,&nbsp;Markus Seelig ,&nbsp;Anke Steckelberg ,&nbsp;Anne Christin Rahn","doi":"10.1016/j.zefq.2024.03.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The Good Practice Guidelines for health information, Good Health Information Austria and Guideline Evidence-based Health Information are established resources for developing evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions. The aim of this project was to capture challenges in applying these standards in practice, identify gaps and development needs and gain insights for their further development.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In December 2020, members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine were invited to share their experiences and needs in applying German standards for evidence-based health information through an online survey focussing on open questions (part 1: needs assessment). The feedback was analysed using qualitative content analysis and presented in a workshop at the EbM Congress 2021 with the goal of specifying the feedback from the needs assessment and discussing ideas for the further development of the standards (part 2: specification). In the final step, a second survey was conducted in February 2023 to prioritize the identified topics by the working group members (part 3: prioritization). The results were analysed descriptively.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among the 41 participants, only 23<!--> <!-->% considered the standards to be sufficient, and only 55<!--> <!-->% found their application in the development of information to be easy or rather easy. The needs assessment and workshop (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->46) helped to identify various areas of action. With regard to the application of the standards, the following challenges were identified: lack of user orientation, content gaps, methods and risk communication. Gaps in the standards were identified regarding formats, content, and the connection to healthcare provision. For the advancement of the standards ideas for additional content, stakeholder involvement, and improvement of the usability of the standards were identified. In the prioritization survey, the topic areas, “presenting benefits and harms” and “content beyond treatments (in particular, diagnostics and prognosis)” were considered to be the most important (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->36).</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Among members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine, a high demand has been identified for the further development of standards for creating evidence-based health information. In addition to content development, the integration of existing documents and tools should also be considered, including products issued by other institutions. The success of advancing the standards also depends on improving their applicability – for example through an attractive online platform. The results are limited by the sample which only included members of the EbM Network's patient information and participation working group and a limited response rate.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The needs assessment showed that the currently established standards and recommendations for the development of evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions represent important cornerstones but need to be expanded to answer more practice-oriented questions. The challenges and proposed solutions stated by the participants can help further develop the standards. The prioritization can be used to set priorities for the development of the standards, guide the order of possible work packages and allocate resources.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S186592172400059X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The Good Practice Guidelines for health information, Good Health Information Austria and Guideline Evidence-based Health Information are established resources for developing evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions. The aim of this project was to capture challenges in applying these standards in practice, identify gaps and development needs and gain insights for their further development.

Methods

In December 2020, members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine were invited to share their experiences and needs in applying German standards for evidence-based health information through an online survey focussing on open questions (part 1: needs assessment). The feedback was analysed using qualitative content analysis and presented in a workshop at the EbM Congress 2021 with the goal of specifying the feedback from the needs assessment and discussing ideas for the further development of the standards (part 2: specification). In the final step, a second survey was conducted in February 2023 to prioritize the identified topics by the working group members (part 3: prioritization). The results were analysed descriptively.

Results

Among the 41 participants, only 23 % considered the standards to be sufficient, and only 55 % found their application in the development of information to be easy or rather easy. The needs assessment and workshop (n = 46) helped to identify various areas of action. With regard to the application of the standards, the following challenges were identified: lack of user orientation, content gaps, methods and risk communication. Gaps in the standards were identified regarding formats, content, and the connection to healthcare provision. For the advancement of the standards ideas for additional content, stakeholder involvement, and improvement of the usability of the standards were identified. In the prioritization survey, the topic areas, “presenting benefits and harms” and “content beyond treatments (in particular, diagnostics and prognosis)” were considered to be the most important (n = 36).

Discussion

Among members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine, a high demand has been identified for the further development of standards for creating evidence-based health information. In addition to content development, the integration of existing documents and tools should also be considered, including products issued by other institutions. The success of advancing the standards also depends on improving their applicability – for example through an attractive online platform. The results are limited by the sample which only included members of the EbM Network's patient information and participation working group and a limited response rate.

Conclusions

The needs assessment showed that the currently established standards and recommendations for the development of evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions represent important cornerstones but need to be expanded to answer more practice-oriented questions. The challenges and proposed solutions stated by the participants can help further develop the standards. The prioritization can be used to set priorities for the development of the standards, guide the order of possible work packages and allocate resources.

[推进为消费者开发循证健康信息的标准:循证医学网络成员的需求和优先事项]。
背景:健康信息良好实践指南》、《奥地利健康信息良好实践指南》和《循证健康信息指南》是德语地区开发循证健康信息的既定资源。该项目的目的是了解这些标准在实际应用中遇到的挑战,找出差距和发展需求,并为其进一步发展提供见解:2020 年 12 月,循证医学网络患者信息和参与工作组的成员受邀通过在线调查分享他们在应用德国循证健康信息标准方面的经验和需求,调查以开放式问题为主(第 1 部分:需求评估)。通过定性内容分析对反馈意见进行了分析,并在 2021 年 EbM 大会的研讨会上进行了介绍,目的是具体说明需求评估的反馈意见,并讨论进一步制定标准的想法(第 2 部分:具体说明)。最后,在 2023 年 2 月进行了第二次调查,由工作组成员对确定的主题进行优先排序(第 3 部分:优先排序)。对调查结果进行了描述性分析:在 41 名参与者中,只有 23% 的人认为标准是充分的,只有 55% 的人认为在信息开发中应用标准是容易或相当容易的。需求评估和研讨会(人数=46)有助于确定各个行动领域。在标准的应用方面,确定了以下挑战:缺乏用户导向、内容差距、方法和风险沟通。在格式、内容以及与医疗保健服务的联系方面,发现了标准中的差距。为促进标准的发展,提出了增加内容、利益相关者参与和提高标准可用性的想法。在优先顺序调查中,"介绍益处和危害 "和 "治疗以外的内容(特别是诊断和预后)"被认为是最重要的主题领域(n=36):讨论:德国循证医学网络患者信息和参与工作组成员认为,进一步开发循证健康信息标准的需求很高。除内容开发外,还应考虑整合现有文件和工具,包括其他机构发布的产品。推进标准的成功还取决于提高其适用性--例如通过一个有吸引力的在线平台。由于样本仅包括 EbM 网络患者信息和参与工作组的成员,且回复率有限,因此评估结果受到一定限制:需求评估结果表明,德语地区目前已建立的循证健康信息发展标准和建议是重要的基石,但还需要进一步扩展,以回答更多面向实践的问题。与会者提出的挑战和解决方案有助于进一步制定标准。优先次序的确定可用于确定标准制定的优先次序、指导可能的工作包的顺序以及分配资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信