@article{EichnerReisDoresetal.2021,
  author    = {Eichner, Felizitas A. and Reis, Joschua M. and Dores, Joaquim and Pavlovic, Vladimir and Kreß, Luisa and Daneshkhah, Naeimeh and Weinhardt, Renate and Grau, Armin and M{\"u}hler, Johannes and Soda, Hassan and Schwarzbach, Christopher J. and Schuler, Michael and H{\"a}usler, Karl Georg and Heuschmann, Peter U.},
  title     = {Cross-sectional study on patients' understanding and views of the informed consent procedure of a secondary stroke prevention trial},
  series = {European Journal of Neurology},
  volume    = {28},
  journal   = {European Journal of Neurology},
  number    = {8},
  doi       = {10.1111/ene.14917},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-259404},
  pages     = {2639-2647},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background and purpose Improving understanding of study contents and procedures might enhance recruitment into studies and retention during follow-up. However, data in stroke patients on understanding of the informed consent (IC) procedure are sparse. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study among ischemic stroke patients taking part in the IC procedure of an ongoing cluster-randomized secondary prevention trial. All aspects of the IC procedure were assessed in an interview using a standardized 20-item questionnaire. Responses were collected within 72 h after the IC procedure and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Participants were also asked their main reasons for participation. Results A total of 146 stroke patients (65 ± 12 years old, 38\% female) were enrolled. On average, patients recalled 66.4\% (95\% confidence interval = 65.2\%-67.5\%) of the content of the IC procedure. Most patients understood that participation was voluntary (99.3\%) and that they had the right to withdraw consent (97.1\%); 79.1\% of the patients recalled the study duration and 56.1\% the goal. Only 40.3\% could clearly state a benefit of participation, and 28.8\% knew their group allocation. Younger age, higher graduation, and allocation to the intervention group were associated with better understanding. Of all patients, 53\% exclusively stated a personal and 22\% an altruistic reason for participation. Conclusions Whereas understanding of patient rights was high, many patients were unable to recall other important aspects of study content and procedures. Increased attention to older and less educated patients may help to enhance understanding in this patient population. Actual recruitment and retention benefit of an improved IC procedure remains to be tested in a randomized trial.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HaydenLimbachSchuleretal.2021,
  author    = {Hayden, Markus C. and Limbach, Matthias and Schuler, Michael and Merkl, Steffen and Schwarzl, Gabriele and Jakab, Katalin and Nowak, Dennis and Schultz, Konrad},
  title     = {Effectiveness of a three-week inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation program for patients after COVID-19: a prospective observational study},
  series = {International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health},
  number    = {17},
  issn      = {1660-4601},
  doi       = {10.3390/ijerph18179001},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-245170},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {For COVID-19 patients who remain symptomatic after the acute phase, pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is recommended. However, only a few studies have investigated the effectiveness of PR, especially considering the duration between the acute phase of COVID-19 and the onset of rehabilitation, as well as the initial severity. This prospective observational study evaluated the efficacy of PR in patients after COVID-19. A total of 120 still-symptomatic patients referred for PR after overcoming acute COVID-19 were asked to participate, of whom 108 (mean age 55.6 ± 10.1 years, 45.4\% female) consented. The patients were assigned to three groups according to the time of referral and initial disease severity (severe acute; severe after interval; mild after interval). The primary outcome was dyspnea. Secondary outcomes included other respiratory disease symptoms, physical capacity, lung function, fatigue, quality of life (QoL), depression, and anxiety. Furthermore, patients rated the overall effectiveness of PR and their subjective change in health status. At the end of PR, we detected improvements with large effect sizes in exertional dyspnea, physical capacity, QoL, fatigue, and depression in the overall group. Other parameters changed with small to medium effect sizes. PR was effective after acute COVID-19 in all three groups analyzed.},
  language  = {en}
}