TY - JOUR A1 - Schrader, Hanna A1 - Ruck, Jessica A1 - Borgulya, Gábor A1 - Parisi, Sandra A1 - Ehlers-Mondorf, Jana A1 - Kaduszkiewicz, Hanna A1 - Joos, Stefanie A1 - Grau, Anna A1 - Linde, Klaus A1 - Gágyor, Ildikó T1 - Stress experiences of healthcare assistants in family practice at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic BT - a mixed methods study JF - Frontiers in Public Health N2 - Background: At the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, healthcare assistants in general practices were confronted with numerous new challenges. The aim of the study was to investigate the stress factors of healthcare assistants in March/April 2020 as well as in the further course of the pandemic in 2020. Methods: From August to December 2020, 6,300 randomly selected healthcare assistants in four German states were invited to participate in the study. We performed a mixed methods design using semi-structured telephone interviews and a cross-sectional survey with quantitative and open questions. The feeling of psychological burden was assessed on a 6-point likert-scale. We defined stress factors and categorized them in patient, non-patient and organizational stress factors. The results of the three data sets were compared within a triangulation protocol. Results: One thousand two hundred seventy-four surveys were analyzed and 28 interviews with 34 healthcare assistants were conducted. Of the participants, 29.5% reported experiences of a very high or high feeling of psychological burden in March/April 2020. Worries about the patients’ health and an uncertainty around the new disease were among the patient-related stress factors. Non-patient-related stress factors were problems with the compatibility of work and family, and the fear of infecting relatives with COVID-19. Organizational efforts and dissatisfaction with governmental pandemic management were reported as organizational stress factors. Support from the employer and team cohesion were considered as important resources. Discussion: It is necessary to reduce stress among healthcare assistants by improving their working conditions and to strengthen their resilience to ensure primary healthcare delivery in future health crises. KW - healthcare assistants KW - COVID-19 pandemic KW - psychological burden KW - stress factors KW - primary care Y1 - 2023 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-327427 SN - 2296-2565 VL - 11 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Weibel, Stephanie A1 - Popp, Maria A1 - Reis, Stefanie A1 - Skoetz, Nicole A1 - Garner, Paul A1 - Sydenham, Emma T1 - Identifying and managing problematic trials: A research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis JF - Research Synthesis Methods N2 - Evidence synthesis findings depend on the assumption that the included studies follow good clinical practice and results are not fabricated or false. Studies which are problematic due to scientific misconduct, poor research practice, or honest error may distort evidence synthesis findings. Authors of evidence synthesis need transparent mechanisms to identify and manage problematic studies to avoid misleading findings. As evidence synthesis authors of the Cochrane COVID-19 review on ivermectin, we identified many problematic studies in terms of research integrity and regulatory compliance. Through iterative discussion, we developed a research integrity assessment (RIA) tool for randomized controlled trials for the update of this Cochrane review. In this paper, we explain the rationale and application of the RIA tool in this case study. RIA assesses six study criteria: study retraction, prospective trial registration, adequate ethics approval, author group, plausibility of methods (e.g., randomization), and plausibility of study results. RIA was used in the Cochrane review as part of the eligibility check during screening of potentially eligible studies. Problematic studies were excluded and studies with open questions were held in awaiting classification until clarified. RIA decisions were made independently by two authors and reported transparently. Using the RIA tool resulted in the exclusion of >40% of studies in the first update of the review. RIA is a complementary tool prior to assessing “Risk of Bias” aiming to establish the integrity and authenticity of studies. RIA provides a platform for urgent development of a standard approach to identifying and managing problematic studies. KW - COVID-19 pandemic KW - systematic review KW - research integrity KW - randomized controlled trial KW - good clinical practice KW - evidence synthesis Y1 - 2023 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-318236 VL - 14 IS - 3 SP - 357 EP - 369 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Diers, Johannes A1 - Acar, Laura A1 - Wagner, Johanna C. A1 - Baum, Philip A1 - Hankir, Mohammed A1 - Flemming, Sven A1 - Kastner, Carolin A1 - Germer, Christoph-Thomas A1 - L’hoest, Helmut A1 - Marschall, Ursula A1 - Lock, Johan Friso A1 - Wiegering, Armin T1 - Cancer diagnosis is one quarter lower than the expected cancer incidence in the first year of COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: A retrospective register-based cohort study JF - Cancer Communications N2 - No abstract available. KW - cancer diagnosis KW - COVID-19 pandemic KW - Germany Y1 - 2022 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-312862 VL - 42 IS - 7 ER -