@book{Popp2002,
  author    = {Popp, Monika},
  title     = {Innenstadtnahe Einkaufszentren - Besucherverhalten zwischen neuen und traditionellen Einzelhandelsstandorten},
  publisher = {L.I.S. Verlag},
  address   = {Passau},
  isbn      = {3-932820-23-1},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-174386},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  pages     = {162},
  year      = {2002},
  abstract  = {„Kannibalisierung" oder „Revitalisierung"? Die Diskussion um die Auswirkungen innenstadtnaher Einkaufzentren k{\"o}nnte kaum kontroverser sein. W{\"a}hrend die einen Gruppe von Experten gerade in der N{\"a}he der Einkaufszentren zur Innenstadt eine Gef{\"a}hrdung f{\"u}r den dortigen Einzelhandel sieht, geht die andere Gruppe davon aus, dass Synergieeffekte entstehen, von denen die traditionellen Innenstadtstandorte ebenso profitieren wie die neue hinzugekommen Einkaufszentren. Empirisch belegt ist weder die eine noch die andere Meinung. Eines steht allerdings fest: Der Trend der Einkaufszentren „zur{\"u}ck in die Innenst{\"a}dte" ist un{\"u}bersehbar. Allein in den letzten Jahren wurden in Deutschland rund 50 neue Einkaufszentren in Innenstadt(rand)lage er{\"o}ffnet. Diese Studie untersucht die Auswirkungen innenstadtnaher Einkaufszentren empirisch. Am Beispiel f{\"u}nf citynaher Einkaufszentren in St{\"a}dten unterschiedlicher Gr{\"o}ße werden besonders die Ver{\"a}nderungen im Besucherverhalten beleuchtet. Dieser Fokus wurde gew{\"a}hlt, weil alle etwaigen Ver{\"a}nderungen in den Innenst{\"a}dten letztlich auf ein ver{\"a}ndertes Besucherverhalten zur{\"u}ckzuf{\"u}hren sind. Ein besonderes Augenmerkt gilt bei der Analyse den Kopplungsbeziehungen zwischen Einkaufszentren und Innenst{\"a}dten sowie dem Verhalten der Koppler. Auf der Grundlage umfangreichen empirischen Materials wird eine differenzierte Bewertung von Chancen und Risiken innenstadtnaher Einkaufszentren vorgenommen.},
  subject      = {Einkaufszentrum},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{WernerPoppFichtneretal.2022,
  author    = {Werner, Anne and Popp, Maria and Fichtner, Falk and Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Kranke, Peter and Steckelberg, Anke and L{\"u}hnen, Julia and Redlich, Lisa Marie and Dickel, Steffen and Grimm, Clemens and Moerer, Onnen and Nothacker, Monika and Seeber, Christian},
  title     = {COVID-19 intensive care — Evaluation of public information sources and current standards of care in German intensive care units: a cross sectional online survey on intensive care staff in Germany},
  series = {Healthcare},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Healthcare},
  number    = {7},
  issn      = {2227-9032},
  doi       = {10.3390/healthcare10071315},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-281865},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Backround: In February 2021, the first formal evidence and consensus-based (S3) guidelines for the inpatient treatment of patients with COVID-19 were published in Germany and have been updated twice during 2021. The aim of the present study is to re-evaluate the dissemination pathways and strategies for ICU staff (first evaluation in December 2020 when previous versions of consensus-based guidelines (S2k) were published) and question selected aspects of guideline adherence of standard care for patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey among German intensive care staff from 11 October 2021 to 11 November 2021. We distributed the survey via e-mail in intensive care facilities and requested redirection to additional intensive care staff (snowball sampling). Results: There was a difference between the professional groups in the number, selection and qualitative assessment of information sources about COVID-19. Standard operating procedures were most frequently used by all occupational groups and received a high quality rating. Physicians preferred sources for active information search (e.g., medical journals), while nurses predominantly used passive consumable sources (e.g., every-day media). Despite differences in usage behaviour, the sources were rated similarly in terms of the quality of the information on COVID-19. The trusted organizations have not changed over time. The use of guidelines was frequently stated and highly recommended. The majority of the participants reported guideline-compliant treatment. Nevertheless, there were certain variations in the use of medication as well as the criteria chosen for discontinuing non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to guideline recommendations. Conclusions: An adequate external source of information for nursing staff is lacking, the usual sources of physicians are only appropriate for the minority of nursing staff. The self-reported use of guidelines is high.},
  language  = {en}
}