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}
[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.