[从相关人员的角度对指导工作的认可和奖励]。

IF 1.4 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Susanne In der Smitten, Valeria Aman, Nikita Sorgatz, Christopher Traylor, Christoph Herrmann-Lingen
{"title":"[从相关人员的角度对指导工作的认可和奖励]。","authors":"Susanne In der Smitten, Valeria Aman, Nikita Sorgatz, Christopher Traylor, Christoph Herrmann-Lingen","doi":"10.1016/j.zefq.2025.04.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the specialist literature clinical practice guidelines are primarily discussed with a focus on the methodology of their development and their importance for medical care. There is a lack of research on the motivation of contributors and on forms of recognition and rewards for involvement in guideline development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between August and December 2023, an exploratory online survey on the possibilities of recognizing engagement in guideline development was conducted among members of scientific medical societies and members of German medical faculties. The survey was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; funding codes 16PU17025A; 16PU17025B) and provided 375 evaluable cases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four out of five respondents (79.1%) stated that they got involved in guideline work via an enquiry from a scientific medical society. They saw the added value above all in medical care (90.3% answering '(rather) true'), but a function of network maintenance was also (rather) affirmed (77.8%). A majority of 80.5% of respondents were in favor of rewarding guideline work, in particular through reimbursement of travel expenses (73.4%) and time off work (70.5%), but also in systems of indicator-based resource allocation (52.7%), other expense allowances (48.3%), or payment of a fee (42.5%). This was specified in free-text responses. The relevance of considering engagement in guideline work in habilitation and job appointment procedures was separately identified. Those against financial remuneration emphasized non-monetary benefits of collaboration, such as network or knowledge expansion, or expressed fears of possible negative consequences, for example with regard to conflicts of interest.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No standard yet exists for recognizing involvement with guideline development. Different forms of expense allowances, time off work and recognition in performance evaluation and resource allocation procedures should be tested and examined for possible consequences.</p>","PeriodicalId":46628,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Recognition and rewards for guideline work from the perspective of those involved].\",\"authors\":\"Susanne In der Smitten, Valeria Aman, Nikita Sorgatz, Christopher Traylor, Christoph Herrmann-Lingen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.zefq.2025.04.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the specialist literature clinical practice guidelines are primarily discussed with a focus on the methodology of their development and their importance for medical care. There is a lack of research on the motivation of contributors and on forms of recognition and rewards for involvement in guideline development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between August and December 2023, an exploratory online survey on the possibilities of recognizing engagement in guideline development was conducted among members of scientific medical societies and members of German medical faculties. The survey was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; funding codes 16PU17025A; 16PU17025B) and provided 375 evaluable cases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four out of five respondents (79.1%) stated that they got involved in guideline work via an enquiry from a scientific medical society. They saw the added value above all in medical care (90.3% answering '(rather) true'), but a function of network maintenance was also (rather) affirmed (77.8%). A majority of 80.5% of respondents were in favor of rewarding guideline work, in particular through reimbursement of travel expenses (73.4%) and time off work (70.5%), but also in systems of indicator-based resource allocation (52.7%), other expense allowances (48.3%), or payment of a fee (42.5%). This was specified in free-text responses. The relevance of considering engagement in guideline work in habilitation and job appointment procedures was separately identified. Those against financial remuneration emphasized non-monetary benefits of collaboration, such as network or knowledge expansion, or expressed fears of possible negative consequences, for example with regard to conflicts of interest.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No standard yet exists for recognizing involvement with guideline development. Different forms of expense allowances, time off work and recognition in performance evaluation and resource allocation procedures should be tested and examined for possible consequences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2025.04.004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2025.04.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在专家文献中,临床实践指南主要讨论的重点是其发展的方法及其对医疗保健的重要性。缺乏对贡献者动机的研究,以及对参与指南制定的认可和奖励形式的研究。方法:在2023年8月至12月期间,在科学医学学会成员和德国医学院成员中进行了一项关于承认参与指南制定可能性的探索性在线调查。这项调查是由德国联邦教育和研究部(BMBF;资助代码16PU17025A;16PU17025B),并提供375个可评估的案例。结果:五分之四(79.1%)的受访者表示他们是通过科学医学学会的咨询参与指南工作的。回答“(相当)正确”的占90.3%,其次是“(相当)肯定”的网络维护功能(77.8%)。80.5%的大多数受访者赞成奖励指标性工作,特别是通过报销差旅费(73.4%)和休假(70.5%),以及基于指标的资源分配制度(52.7%),其他费用补贴(48.3%)或支付费用(42.5%)。这在自由文本响应中指定。在康复和工作任命程序中考虑参与指导工作的相关性分别被确定。那些反对经济报酬的人强调合作的非金钱利益,例如网络或知识的扩展,或表示担心可能的负面后果,例如关于利益冲突。结论:目前还没有标准来识别指南制定的参与程度。应试验和审查不同形式的费用津贴、休假和对业绩评价和资源分配程序的认可,以确定可能产生的后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[Recognition and rewards for guideline work from the perspective of those involved].

Background: In the specialist literature clinical practice guidelines are primarily discussed with a focus on the methodology of their development and their importance for medical care. There is a lack of research on the motivation of contributors and on forms of recognition and rewards for involvement in guideline development.

Methods: Between August and December 2023, an exploratory online survey on the possibilities of recognizing engagement in guideline development was conducted among members of scientific medical societies and members of German medical faculties. The survey was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; funding codes 16PU17025A; 16PU17025B) and provided 375 evaluable cases.

Results: Four out of five respondents (79.1%) stated that they got involved in guideline work via an enquiry from a scientific medical society. They saw the added value above all in medical care (90.3% answering '(rather) true'), but a function of network maintenance was also (rather) affirmed (77.8%). A majority of 80.5% of respondents were in favor of rewarding guideline work, in particular through reimbursement of travel expenses (73.4%) and time off work (70.5%), but also in systems of indicator-based resource allocation (52.7%), other expense allowances (48.3%), or payment of a fee (42.5%). This was specified in free-text responses. The relevance of considering engagement in guideline work in habilitation and job appointment procedures was separately identified. Those against financial remuneration emphasized non-monetary benefits of collaboration, such as network or knowledge expansion, or expressed fears of possible negative consequences, for example with regard to conflicts of interest.

Conclusion: No standard yet exists for recognizing involvement with guideline development. Different forms of expense allowances, time off work and recognition in performance evaluation and resource allocation procedures should be tested and examined for possible consequences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
129
×
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