[癌症咨询中心的员工及其提供者如何评估健康保险基金对门诊癌症咨询中心的资助-一项定性访谈研究]。

IF 0.8 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Susanne Kuhnt, Anne-Kathrin Köditz, Svenja Heyne, Charlotte Gmeiner, Maria Mahlberg, Susanne Weg-Remers, Anja Mehnert-Theuerkauf, Jochen Ernst
{"title":"[癌症咨询中心的员工及其提供者如何评估健康保险基金对门诊癌症咨询中心的资助-一项定性访谈研究]。","authors":"Susanne Kuhnt, Anne-Kathrin Köditz, Svenja Heyne, Charlotte Gmeiner, Maria Mahlberg, Susanne Weg-Remers, Anja Mehnert-Theuerkauf, Jochen Ernst","doi":"10.1055/a-2654-5683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since 2020, cancer counselling centers (CCCs) have been eligible for funding from health insurance funds under the legal regulation on \"Outpatient Cancer Counseling\" (§65e SGB V). This article investigates the rationale for or against applying for funding and evaluates the funding option from the perspective of staff members at both funded and non-funded CCCs, as well as sponsoring organizations. The aim is to analyse the practical feasibility of the financing model.We conducted a qualitative study using guided expert interviews with employees of CCCs and sponsoring organizations. The institutions for interview participation were selected from all existing CCCs and sponsoring organizations, taking into account factors such as size, region, and funding status of the CCC through a quota-based random selection process. The interviews were analyzed using content-structural evaluation methods according to Kuckartz.The analysis is based on statements from 44 expert interviews, including 17 funded CCCs, 9 non-funded CCCs, 6 CCCs with changing status, and 12 sponsoring organizations. The funding option was generally rated positively and recognized as a significant advancement for outpatient cancer counselling. With regard to the required minimum number of consultations, it should be noted that the majority of CCCs considered this to be achievable. However, certain structural aspects were criticized, particularly regarding the allocation process, funding stability, and the requirements of financial auditing. Issues such as the remaining uncertainty of stable financing, and the insufficient recognition of essential work areas, such as group services, were highlighted, as well as the inadequate consideration of differences in service mandates, especially for CCCs in rural areas.The partial funding of outpatient CCCs by health insurance funds is an important step towards stable financing and standardization in outpatient cancer counselling. Future amendments should aim to ensure long-term security and flexibility of funding options in order to maintain comprehensive, needs-based and quality-assured cancer counselling in Germany with a growing proportion of cancer survivors, a significant proportion of whom have psychosocial problems and need counselling.</p>","PeriodicalId":47315,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[How do employees of cancer counseling centers and their providers evaluate the funding of outpatient cancer counseling centers by health insurance funds - A qualitative interview study].\",\"authors\":\"Susanne Kuhnt, Anne-Kathrin Köditz, Svenja Heyne, Charlotte Gmeiner, Maria Mahlberg, Susanne Weg-Remers, Anja Mehnert-Theuerkauf, Jochen Ernst\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2654-5683\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Since 2020, cancer counselling centers (CCCs) have been eligible for funding from health insurance funds under the legal regulation on \\\"Outpatient Cancer Counseling\\\" (§65e SGB V). This article investigates the rationale for or against applying for funding and evaluates the funding option from the perspective of staff members at both funded and non-funded CCCs, as well as sponsoring organizations. The aim is to analyse the practical feasibility of the financing model.We conducted a qualitative study using guided expert interviews with employees of CCCs and sponsoring organizations. The institutions for interview participation were selected from all existing CCCs and sponsoring organizations, taking into account factors such as size, region, and funding status of the CCC through a quota-based random selection process. The interviews were analyzed using content-structural evaluation methods according to Kuckartz.The analysis is based on statements from 44 expert interviews, including 17 funded CCCs, 9 non-funded CCCs, 6 CCCs with changing status, and 12 sponsoring organizations. The funding option was generally rated positively and recognized as a significant advancement for outpatient cancer counselling. With regard to the required minimum number of consultations, it should be noted that the majority of CCCs considered this to be achievable. However, certain structural aspects were criticized, particularly regarding the allocation process, funding stability, and the requirements of financial auditing. Issues such as the remaining uncertainty of stable financing, and the insufficient recognition of essential work areas, such as group services, were highlighted, as well as the inadequate consideration of differences in service mandates, especially for CCCs in rural areas.The partial funding of outpatient CCCs by health insurance funds is an important step towards stable financing and standardization in outpatient cancer counselling. Future amendments should aim to ensure long-term security and flexibility of funding options in order to maintain comprehensive, needs-based and quality-assured cancer counselling in Germany with a growing proportion of cancer survivors, a significant proportion of whom have psychosocial problems and need counselling.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2654-5683\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2654-5683","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自2020年以来,根据《癌症门诊咨询》法律条例(SGB V第65e条),癌症咨询中心(CCCs)有资格获得健康保险基金的资助。本文调查了申请资助或反对申请资助的理由,并从资助和非资助的核心中心以及赞助组织的工作人员的角度评估了资助选择。目的是分析该融资模式的现实可行性。我们对CCCs和赞助组织的员工进行了一项定性研究。通过基于配额的随机选择程序,从所有现有的合作中心和赞助组织中选择参与访谈的机构,考虑到合作中心的规模、地区和资助状况等因素。访谈采用库卡兹的内容结构评价方法进行分析。该分析基于44位专家访谈的陈述,其中包括17个资助的CCCs, 9个非资助的CCCs, 6个状态变化的CCCs和12个赞助组织。资助方案通常被评价为积极的,并被认为是门诊癌症咨询的重大进步。关于所需的最低协商次数,应该指出的是,大多数核心协调委员会认为这是可以实现的。但是,某些结构方面受到批评,特别是关于分配过程、资金稳定性和财务审计的要求。会议强调了一些问题,例如稳定的筹资仍然不确定,对诸如团体服务等基本工作领域认识不足,以及对服务任务规定的差异考虑不足,特别是农村地区的共同承诺。由健康保险基金部分资助门诊中心,是朝着门诊癌症咨询稳定融资和标准化迈出的重要一步。未来的修订应旨在确保资金选择的长期安全性和灵活性,以便在德国维持全面的、基于需求的和有质量保证的癌症咨询,因为癌症幸存者的比例越来越大,其中很大一部分人有心理社会问题,需要咨询。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[How do employees of cancer counseling centers and their providers evaluate the funding of outpatient cancer counseling centers by health insurance funds - A qualitative interview study].

Since 2020, cancer counselling centers (CCCs) have been eligible for funding from health insurance funds under the legal regulation on "Outpatient Cancer Counseling" (§65e SGB V). This article investigates the rationale for or against applying for funding and evaluates the funding option from the perspective of staff members at both funded and non-funded CCCs, as well as sponsoring organizations. The aim is to analyse the practical feasibility of the financing model.We conducted a qualitative study using guided expert interviews with employees of CCCs and sponsoring organizations. The institutions for interview participation were selected from all existing CCCs and sponsoring organizations, taking into account factors such as size, region, and funding status of the CCC through a quota-based random selection process. The interviews were analyzed using content-structural evaluation methods according to Kuckartz.The analysis is based on statements from 44 expert interviews, including 17 funded CCCs, 9 non-funded CCCs, 6 CCCs with changing status, and 12 sponsoring organizations. The funding option was generally rated positively and recognized as a significant advancement for outpatient cancer counselling. With regard to the required minimum number of consultations, it should be noted that the majority of CCCs considered this to be achievable. However, certain structural aspects were criticized, particularly regarding the allocation process, funding stability, and the requirements of financial auditing. Issues such as the remaining uncertainty of stable financing, and the insufficient recognition of essential work areas, such as group services, were highlighted, as well as the inadequate consideration of differences in service mandates, especially for CCCs in rural areas.The partial funding of outpatient CCCs by health insurance funds is an important step towards stable financing and standardization in outpatient cancer counselling. Future amendments should aim to ensure long-term security and flexibility of funding options in order to maintain comprehensive, needs-based and quality-assured cancer counselling in Germany with a growing proportion of cancer survivors, a significant proportion of whom have psychosocial problems and need counselling.

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
1.70
自引率
11.10%
发文量
89
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信