@article{HolzmannLittigFrankSchmadereretal.2022,
  author    = {Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Frank, Tamara and Schmaderer, Christoph and Braunisch, Matthias C. and Renders, Lutz and Kranke, Peter and Popp, Maria and Seeber, Christian and Fichtner, Falk and Littig, Bianca and Carbajo-Lozoya, Javier and Meerpohl, Joerg J. and Haller, Bernhard and Allwang, Christine},
  title     = {COVID-19 Vaccines: Fear of side effects among German health care workers},
  series = {Vaccines},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Vaccines},
  number    = {5},
  issn      = {2076-393X},
  doi       = {10.3390/vaccines10050689},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-270561},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {(1) Background: Health care workers (HCWs) play a key role in increasing anti-COVID vaccination rates. Fear of potential side effects is one of the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy. We investigated which side effects are of concern to HCWs and how these are associated with vaccine hesitancy. (2) Methods: Data were collected in an online survey in February 2021 among HCWs from across Germany with 4500 included participants. Free-text comments on previously experienced vaccination side effects, and fear of short- and long-term side effects of the COVID-19 vaccination were categorized and analyzed. (3) Results: Most feared short-term side effects were vaccination reactions, allergic reactions, and limitations in daily life. Most feared long-term side effects were (auto-) immune reactions, neurological side effects, and currently unknown long-term consequences. Concerns about serious vaccination side effects were associated with vaccination refusal. There was a clear association between refusal of COVID-19 vaccination in one's personal environment and fear of side effects. (4) Conclusions: Transparent information about vaccine side effects is needed, especially for HCW. Especially when the participants' acquaintances advised against vaccination, they were significantly more likely to fear side effects. Thus, further education of HCW is necessary to achieve good information transfer in clusters as well.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HolzmannLittigStadlerPoppetal.2023,
  author    = {Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Stadler, David and Popp, Maria and Kranke, Peter and Fichtner, Falk and Schmaderer, Christoph and Renders, Lutz and Braunisch, Matthias Christoph and Assali, Tarek and Platen, Louise and Wijnen-Meijer, Marjo and L{\"u}hnen, Julia and Steckelberg, Anke and Pfadenhauer, Lisa and Haller, Bernhard and Fuetterer, Cornelia and Seeber, Christian and Schaaf, Christian},
  title     = {Locating medical information during an infodemic: information seeking behavior and strategies of health-care workers in Germany},
  series = {Healthcare},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Healthcare},
  number    = {11},
  issn      = {2227-9032},
  doi       = {10.3390/healthcare11111602},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-319306},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a flood of — often contradictory — evidence. HCWs had to develop strategies to locate information that supported their work. We investigated the information-seeking of different HCW groups in Germany. Methods: In December 2020, we conducted online surveys on COVID-19 information sources, strategies, assigned trustworthiness, and barriers — and in February 2021, on COVID-19 vaccination information sources. Results were analyzed descriptively; group comparisons were performed using χ\(^2\)-tests. Results: For general COVID-19-related medical information (413 participants), non-physicians most often selected official websites (57\%), TV (57\%), and e-mail/newsletters (46\%) as preferred information sources — physicians chose official websites (63\%), e-mail/newsletters (56\%), and professional journals (55\%). Non-physician HCWs used Facebook/YouTube more frequently. The main barriers were insufficient time and access issues. Non-physicians chose abstracts (66\%), videos (45\%), and webinars (40\%) as preferred information strategy; physicians: overviews with algorithms (66\%), abstracts (62\%), webinars (48\%). Information seeking on COVID-19 vaccination (2700 participants) was quite similar, however, with newspapers being more often used by non-physicians (63\%) vs. physician HCWs (70\%). Conclusion: Non-physician HCWs more often consulted public information sources. Employers/institutions should ensure the supply of professional, targeted COVID-19 information for different HCW groups.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{AssfalgSeligTolksdorfetal.2020,
  author    = {Assfalg, Volker and Selig, Katharina and Tolksdorf, Johanna and van Meel, Marieke and de Vries, Erwin and Ramsoebhag, Anne-Marie and Rahmel, Axel and Renders, Lutz and Novotny, Alexander and Matevossian, Edouard and Schneeberger, Stefan and Rosenkranz, Alexander R. and Berlakovich, Gabriela and Ysebaert, Dirk and Knops, No{\"e}l and Kuypers, Dirk and Weekers, Laurent and Muehlfeld, Anja and Rump, Lars-Christian and Hauser, Ingeborg and Pisarski, Przemyslaw and Weimer, Rolf and Fornara, Paolo and Fischer, Lutz and Kliem, Volker and Sester, Urban and Stippel, Dirk and Arns, Wolfgang and Hau, Hans-Michael and Nitschke, Martin and Hoyer, Joachim and Thorban, Stefan and Weinmann-Menke, Julia and Heller, Katharina and Banas, Bernhard and Schwenger, Vedat and Nadalin, Silvio and Lopau, Kai and H{\"u}ser, Norbert and Heemann, Uwe},
  title     = {Repeated kidney re-transplantation—the Eurotransplant experience: a retrospective multicenter outcome analysis},
  series = {Transplant International},
  volume    = {33},
  journal   = {Transplant International},
  number    = {6},
  doi       = {10.1111/tri.13569},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-214161},
  pages     = {617 -- 631},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {In Eurotransplant kidney allocation system (ETKAS), candidates can be considered unlimitedly for repeated re-transplantation. Data on outcome and benefit are indeterminate. We performed a retrospective 15-year patient and graft outcome data analysis from 1464 recipients of a third or fourth or higher sequential deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) from 42 transplant centers. Repeated re-DDRT recipients were younger (mean 43.0 vs. 50.2 years) compared to first DDRT recipients. They received grafts with more favorable HLA matches (89.0\% vs. 84.5\%) but thereby no statistically significant improvement of patient and graft outcome was found as comparatively demonstrated in 1st DDRT. In the multivariate modeling accounting for confounding factors, mortality and graft loss after 3rd and ≥4th DDRT (P < 0.001 each) and death with functioning graft (DwFG) after 3rd DDRT (P = 0.001) were higher as compared to 1st DDRT. The incidence of primary nonfunction (PNF) was also significantly higher in re-DDRT (12.7\%) than in 1st DDRT (7.1\%; P < 0.001). Facing organ shortage, increasing waiting time, and considerable mortality on dialysis, we question the current policy of repeated re-DDRT. The data from this survey propose better HLA matching in first DDRT and second DDRT and careful selection of candidates, especially for ≥4th DDRT.},
  language  = {en}
}