TY - JOUR A1 - Lukasczik, Matthias A1 - Wolf, Hans-Dieter A1 - Gerlich, Christian A1 - Küffner, Roland A1 - Vogel, Heiner A1 - Neuderth, Silke T1 - Addressing Work-Related Issues in Medical Rehabilitation: Revision of an Online Information Tool for Healthcare Professionals JF - Rehabilitation Research and Practice N2 - Background. Medical rehabilitation increasingly considers occupational issues as determinants of health and work ability. Information on work-related rehabilitation concepts should therefore be made available to healthcare professionals. Objective. To revise a website providing healthcare professionals in medical rehabilitation facilities with information on work-related concepts in terms of updating existing information and including new topics, based on recommendations from implementation research. Method. The modification process included a questionnaire survey of medical rehabilitation centers (n=28); two workshops with experts from rehabilitation centers, health payers, and research institutions (n=14); the selection of new topics and revision of existing text modules based on expert consensus; and an update of good practice descriptions of work-related measures. Results. Health payers’ requirements, workplace descriptions, and practical implementation aids were added as new topics. The database of good practice examples was extended to 63 descriptions. Information on introductory concepts was rewritten and supplemented by current data. Diagnostic tools were updated by including additional assessments. Conclusions. Recommendations from implementation research such as assessing user needs and including expert knowledge may serve as a useful starting point for the dissemination of information on work-related medical rehabilitation into practice. Web-based information tools such as the website presented here can be quickly adapted to current evidence and changes in medicolegal regulations. KW - medical rehabilitation KW - online tool Y1 - 2016 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-146911 VL - 2016 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Lukasczik, Matthias A1 - Gerlich, Christian A1 - Wolf, Hans Dieter A1 - Vogel, Heiner T1 - Beyond oncology: question prompt lists in healthcare — A scoping review protocol JF - Methods and Protocols N2 - Question prompt lists (QPL) are an instrument to promote patient participation in medical encounters by providing a set of questions patients can use during consultations. QPL have predominantly been examined in oncology. Less is known about their use in other contexts. Therefore, we plan to conduct a scoping review to provide an overview of the fields of healthcare in which QPL have been developed and evaluated. MEDLINE/PUBMED, PSYCINFO, PSYNDEX, WEB OF SCIENCE, and CINAHL will be systematically searched. Primary studies from different healthcare contexts that address the following participants/target groups will be included: persons with an acute, chronic, or recurring health condition other than cancer; healthy persons in non-oncological primary preventive measures. There will be no restrictions in terms of study design, sample size, or outcomes. However, only published studies will be included. Studies that were published in English and German between 1990 and 2019 will be examined. Two independent reviewers will apply defined inclusion/exclusion criteria and determine study eligibility in the review process guided by the PRISMA statement. KW - question prompt list KW - patient participation KW - scoping review KW - decision support techniques KW - literature search KW - non-oncological Y1 - 2020 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-200832 SN - 2409-9279 VL - 3 IS - 1 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Strahl, André A1 - Gerlich, Christian A1 - Alpers, Georg W. A1 - Gehrke, Jörg A1 - Müller-Garnn, Annette A1 - Vogel, Heiner T1 - An instrument for quality assurance in work capacity evaluation: development, evaluation, and inter-rater reliability JF - BMC Health Services Research N2 - Background: Employees insured in pension insurance, who are incapable of working due to ill health, are entitled to a disability pension. To assess whether an individual meets the medical requirements to be considered as disabled, a work capacity evaluation is conducted. However, there are no official guidelines on how to perform an external quality assurance for this evaluation process. Furthermore, the quality of medical reports in the field of insurance medicine can vary substantially, and systematic evaluations are scarce. Reliability studies using peer review have repeatedly shown insufficient ability to distinguish between high, moderate and low quality. Considering literature recommendations, we developed an instrument to examine the quality of medical experts’reports. Methods: The peer review manual developed contains six quality domains (formal structure, clarity, transparency, completeness, medical-scientific principles, and efficiency) comprising 22 items. In addition, a superordinate criterion (survey confirmability) rank the overall quality and usefulness of a report. This criterion evaluates problems of innerlogic and reasoning. Development of the manual was assisted by experienced physicians in a pre-test. We examined the observable variance in peer judgements and reliability as the most important outcome criteria. To evaluate inter-rater reliability, 20 anonymous experts’ reports detailing the work capacity evaluation were reviewed by 19 trained raters (peers). Percentage agreement and Kendall’s W, a reliability measure of concordance between two or more peers, were calculated. A total of 325 reviews were conducted. Results: Agreement of peer judgements with respect to the superordinate criterion ranged from 29.2 to 87.5%. Kendall’s W for the quality domain items varied greatly, ranging from 0.09 to 0.88. With respect to the superordinate criterion, Kendall’s W was 0.39, which indicates fair agreement. The results of the percentage agreement revealed systemic peer preferences for certain deficit scale categories. Conclusion: The superordinate criterion was not sufficiently reliable. However, in comparison to other reliability studies, this criterion showed an equivalent reliability value. This report aims to encourage further efforts to improve evaluation instruments. To reduce disagreement between peer judgments, we propose the revision of the peer review instrumentand the development and implementation of a standardized rater training to improve reliability. KW - work capacity evaluation KW - insurance medicine KW - quality assurance KW - peer review KW - reliability Y1 - 2019 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-200289 VL - 19 ER -