<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<export-example>
  <doc>
    <id>2578</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2019</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst>599</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>605</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>8-9</issue>
    <volume>81</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Thieme</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">Lehre von Public Health in gesundheitsbezogenen Studiengängen in Deutschland: die Sicht von Studiengangsverantwortlichen</title>
    <abstract language="deu">Hintergrund &#13;
Inhalte von Public Health werden in Deutschland in gesundheitsbezogenen Studiengängen an Hochschulen und Universitäten gelehrt. Ziel dieser Studie war es, Daten zur Lehre und zur Kooperation von Lehrenden von Public Health in gesundheitsbezogenen Studiengängen in Deutschland zur Verfügung zu stellen.&#13;
&#13;
Methode &#13;
Eine Querschnittsuntersuchung wurde online-basiert vom 01.06. bis 15.09.2015 an 93 Hochschulen/Universitäten in Deutschland mit 351 Studiengangsverantwortlichen aus gesundheitsbezogenen Studiengängen durchgeführt. Einbezogen wurden Public Health Studiengänge und gesundheitsbezogene Studiengänge, deren Hochschulen bzw. Universitäten entweder Mitglied in der „Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sozialmedizin und Prävention“ (DGSMP) oder in der Gesellschaft „Hochschulen für Gesundheit“ (HOGE) sind. Teilgenommen an dieser Studie haben N=104 Studiengangsverantwortliche (43% Männer, 57% Frauen). In Public Health Studiengängen wurden „Global Health“ und „Umwelt und Gesundheit“ als Studieninhalte häufiger als in gesundheitsbezogenen Studiengängen benannt; in gesundheitsbezogenen Studiengängen wurden häufiger „Ethik“ und „Gesundheitspsychologie“ als Lehrinhalte benannt. Finanzielle Unterstützungen durch die Hochschulen/ Universitäten sowie strukturierte Partnerschaften zwischen Hochschulen und/ oder Universitäten werden von Lehrenden an Hochschulen (36%) und an Universitäten (40%) gewünscht. Lehrende an Hochschulen wünschen darüber hinaus Promotionspartnerschaften.&#13;
&#13;
Schlussfolgerung &#13;
Bisher gibt es in Deutschland keine einheitlichen fachlichen Qualitätskriterien für Absolvierende von Public Health bzw. gesundheitsbezogenen Studiengängen. Zudem gibt es nach Aussage der Studiengangsverantwortlichen dieser Studiengänge wenig Kooperation zwischen Lehrenden der Public Health bzw. der gesundheitsbezogenen Studiengänge.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Gesundheitswesen</parentTitle>
    <additionalTitle language="deu">Public Health Education in Health-Related Study Programs in Germany: Perspectives from Course Coordinators</additionalTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1055/s-0043-116940</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-01-27T15:33:58+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="BegutachtungStatus">peer-reviewed</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>Jutta Lindert</author>
    <author>Annette Wehrwein</author>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <author>Ulla Walter</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>EUROPEAN ACCREDITATION</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>health-related study programs</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>public health</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>teaching</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3187</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2015</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst>17</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>18</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <volume>23</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>De Gruyter</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">Patientenorientierung ernst nehmen</title>
    <abstract language="deu">Die Orientierung an und auf die Bedarfe, Bedürfnisse und Präferenzen von Patienten gehört seit vielen Jahren zum Basisrepertoire der Gesundheitsrhetorik. Trotz einiger praktischer Schritte in diese Richtung, sieht der Alltag im deutschen Gesundheitswesen aber noch deutlich anders aus. Erst wenn Versorgungsforscher, gesundheitspolitisch Verantwortliche und Versorgungspraktiker Patientenorientierung zum archimedischen Punkt ihrer Sicht- und Handlungsweise machen, wird sich daran etwas ändern.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Public Health Forum</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1515/pubhef-2015-0008</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-17T06:53:51+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>Bernard Braun</author>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>evidenzbasierte Patienteninformationen</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Nutzerorientierung</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Patientenorientierung</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>shared decision making</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3202</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2015</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst>50</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>51</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume>15</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">Replik</title>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Forum Médical Suisse ‒ Swiss Medical Forum</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.4414/fms.2015.02520</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-17T07:14:43+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>4700</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2019</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>preprint</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Conflict of Interest Policies at German medical schools - A long way to go</title>
    <abstract language="eng">Abstract Background Most medical students are in contact with the pharmaceutical or medical device industry during their studies. Medical schools play an important role in protecting students from undue commercial influence and educating them about pharmaceutical marketing practices. Such influence has been shown to affect later prescribing behaviour with potential adverse effects for patient care. While in North America, many medical schools formulated and implemented conflicts of interest (COI) policies, only few such institutional policies have been reported in Germany. We aimed to analyze the quantity and quality of policies and curricula on COI at medical schools across Germany.  Methods We collected relevant COI policies and teaching activities by conducting a search of the websites of all 38 German medical schools using standardized keywords for COI policies and teaching. Further, we surveyed all medical schools’ dean’s offices and adapted a scoring system for obtained results with 13 categories based on prior similar studies.  Results We identified relevant policies for one medical school via the web-search. The response rate of the deans’ survey was 16 of 38 (42.1%). In total, we identified COI-related policies for 2 of 38 (5.3%) German medical schools, yet no policy was sufficient to address all COI-related categories that were assessed in this study. The maximum score achieved was 12 of 26. 36 (94.7%) schools scored 0. No medical school reported curricular teaching on COI.  Conclusion Our results indicate a low level of action by medical schools to protect students from undue commercial influence. No participating dean was aware of any curriculum or instruction on COI at their respective school. The German Medical Students Association and international counterparts have called for a stronger focus on COI in the classroom. We conclude that for German medical schools there is still a long way to go.</abstract>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1101/809723</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-07-04T20:29:15+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">true</enrichment>
    <licence>Creative Commons - CC BY - Namensnennung 4.0 International</licence>
    <author>Peter Grabitz</author>
    <author>Zoe Friedmann</author>
    <author>Sophie Gepp</author>
    <author>Leonard U. Hess</author>
    <author>Lisa Specht</author>
    <author>Maja Struck</author>
    <author>Sophie Kira Tragert</author>
    <author>Tobias Walther</author>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3099</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2016</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>S5</pageFirst>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>Issue S1: Abstracts of the 24th European Congress of Psychiatry</issue>
    <volume>33</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Elsevier</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Choosing wisely in Germany - adapting an international initiative to a national healthcare agenda</title>
    <abstract language="eng">Overuse and underuse in healthcare is a chronic problem in most healthcare systems. Inspired by the North American Choosing Wisely Initiative, the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), which actually counts 173 member organisations, decided to address the problem. The aim of the German “Gemeinsam klug entscheiden” (deciding together wisely)-initiative is to reduce overuse, underuse and misuse of health interventions in areas where recommendations of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are not adequately implemented or missing. Starting point are the positive and negative recommendations of the CPGs, which the AWMF-member societies have developed for more than 20 years, following the manual and rules set up by AWMF. To identify and select recommendations methodological criteria have been developed by a working group in a consensus-based process. The development of AWMF-CPGs follows a methodology that aims to ensure the full integration of evidence, an interdisciplinary and interprofessional perspective, the prevention of bias as a consequence of conflicts of interest and full transparency of the development process.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">European Psychiatry</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.783</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-17T06:05:16+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="ConferenceStatement">24th European Congress of Psychiatry</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="BegutachtungStatus">peer-reviewed</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3115</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2017</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>178</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>190</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>10090</issue>
    <volume>390</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Elsevier</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Drivers of poor medical care</title>
    <abstract language="eng">The global ubiquity of overuse and underuse of health-care resources and the gravity of resulting harms necessitate an investigation of drivers to inform potential solutions. We describe the network of influences that contribute to poor care and suggest that it is driven by factors that fall into three domains: money and finance; knowledge, bias, and uncertainty; and power and human relationships. In each domain the drivers operate at the global, national, regional, and individual level, and are modulated by the specific contexts within which they act. We discuss in detail drivers of poor care in each domain.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">The Lancet</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30947-3</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-17T06:05:16+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>Vikas Saini</author>
    <author>Sandra Garcia-Armesto</author>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <author>Valerie Paris</author>
    <author>Adam G. Elshaug</author>
    <author>Shannon Brownlee</author>
    <author>John P. A. Ioannidis</author>
    <author>Elliott S. Fisher</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>CORONARY-ARTERY-DISEASE</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>EMERGENCY-DEPARTMENT</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>HEALTH-CARE</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>INFORMED-CONSENT</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>PHARMACEUTICAL-INDUSTRY</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>SHARED DECISION-MAKING</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>SOCIAL DETERMINANTS</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>SOCIOECONOMIC DISPARITIES</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>UNITED-STATES</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2595</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2020</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>747</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>755</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume>14</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>DOVE MEDICAL PRESS</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Defining Criteria for Guiding Cancer Patients to Find a Reputable Complementary Medicine Provider</title>
    <abstract language="eng">Purpose: Even in cases of positive evidence for complementary medicine (CM) therapies, it is still difficult for cancer patients to identify reputable providers. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a criteria list to provide guidance to cancer patients seeking a reputable CM provider.&#13;
Methods: The design combined a literature review, an expert consensus procedure (n=15) and an assessment from three stakeholder perspectives (patients (n=18), CM providers (n=26) and oncology physicians (n=20)).&#13;
Results: A total of 30 existing CM criteria were extracted from the literature, and 12 more were added by the experts. The main challenge was to define criteria that could easily be applied by the patients. A final comprehensive list of 8 criteria guiding cancer patients to find a reputable CM provider was developed.&#13;
Conclusion: Health professionals and cancer information services might find the criteria list helpful when aiming to strengthen patients' awareness of quality-related factors associated with CM providers. The criteria developed might be helpful when standards are established for quality assurance in CM in oncology.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Patient Preference and Adherence</parentTitle>
    <subTitle language="eng">Results of a Literature Review and a Consensus Procedure</subTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.2147/PPA.S230705</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-01-27T15:33:58+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="BegutachtungStatus">peer-reviewed</enrichment>
    <licence>Creative Commons - CC BY-NC - Namensnennung - Nicht kommerziell 4.0 International</licence>
    <author>Alize A. Rogge</author>
    <author>Isabel Baur</author>
    <author>Gabriele Blettner</author>
    <author>Ulrike Holtkamp</author>
    <author>Markus Horneber</author>
    <author>Patrick Jahn</author>
    <author>Stefanie Joos</author>
    <author>Silva Keberle</author>
    <author>Anita Kettelgerdes</author>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <author>Alfred Laengler</author>
    <author>Petra Voiss</author>
    <author>Joachim Weis</author>
    <author>Claudia M. Witt</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>complementary medicine</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>healthcare quality assurance</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>neoplasms</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>patient-centered care</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>standards</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othpublikationsherkunft" number="">Externe Publikationen</collection>
    <collection role="oaweg" number="">Gold Open Access- Erstveröffentlichung in einem/als Open-Access-Medium</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3237</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2010</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst>120</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>130</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <volume>104</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Elsevier</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">Wie rückt Qualität in den Fokus der Gesundheitsversorgung?</title>
    <abstract language="deu">Obwohl es in Deutschland inzwischen eine Vielzahl an gesetzlichen Vorgaben, Konzepten und Instrumenten zur Qualitätsförderung gibt, scheint das Gesundheitswesen von einer lebendigen Qualitätskultur noch weit entfernt zu sein. Um Wege aufzuzeigen, wie die Entwicklung und Umsetzung einer Qualitätskultur in der deutschen Gesundheitsversorgung gelingen könnte, hat die Bertelsmann Stiftung im Sommer 2009 eine Delphi-Befragung von sieben wissenschaftlich mit dem Thema Qualität im Gesundheitswesen befassten Experten sowie eine Online-Befragung von insgesamt 239 Akteuren aus den Bereichen Medizin, Selbstverwaltung, Politik, Industrie und Patientenvertretung durchgeführt. Auf dieser Basis wurden 31 Thesen aus zwölf Themenbereichen formuliert und beurteilt, die notwendige Bausteine dafür beschreiben, dass Qualität in den Fokus der Gesundheitsversorgung in Deutschland rückt. Bei einer Dichotomisierung der vorgegebenen Antwortskala (Schulnoten von 1–6) erhielten 28 der 31 Thesen zu mehr als 2/3 eine Zustimmung der Akteure mit den Notenwerten 1 oder 2 im Vergleich zu 3–6. Die zehn Thesen mit den höchsten Zustimmungswerten erhielten von jeweils 85% und mehr Akteuren Notenwerte von 1 oder 2. Den Hauptergebnissen der Befragungen folgend, erfordert die Etablierung einer vom Großteil der Befragten gewünschten Qualitätskultur, vordringlich ergebnisorientierte Qualitätsziele und Qualitätsindikatoren zu definieren, Qualitätsmanagement stärker in der Ausbildung zu beachten und eine auf möglichst objektiver Qualitätstransparenz beruhende, mit Anreizen versehene Qualitätsförderung einzuführen. Die hohe Übereinstimmung von Experten und Akteuren im Hinblick auf die notwendigen Schritte zur Etablierung einer lebendigen Qualitätskultur im deutschen Gesundheitswesen geben Hoffnung, dass die konkrete Umsetzung dieser Schritte gemeinsam gelingen könnte.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen</parentTitle>
    <subTitle language="deu">Ergebnisse einer Delphi- und Akteurbefragung</subTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1016/j.zefq.2009.12.028</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-17T07:14:43+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>Max Geraedts</author>
    <author>Reinhard Busse</author>
    <author>Wilfried H. Jäckel</author>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <author>Susanne Mauersberg</author>
    <author>Dirk Sauerland</author>
    <author>Eckhard Volbracht</author>
    <author>Uwe Schwenk</author>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Qualität der Gesundheitsversorgung</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Qualitätsmanagement</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Qualitätssicherung</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>quality assurance</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Quality management</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>quality of health care</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othpublikationsherkunft" number="">Externe Publikationen</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3234</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2015</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst>866</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>871</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>39</issue>
    <volume>15</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Swiss Medical Forum</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">Über- und Unterversorgung in der Medizin</title>
    <abstract language="deu">Die Medizin verfügt über ständig wachsendes Wissen und immer mehr Behandlungsmöglichkeiten. Was fehlt: eine Orientierung auf den Nutzen für kranke und gesunde Menschen. Wenn alle Verantwortlichen handlungsbereit wären, dürften viele Probleme  mit  dem vorhandenen Wissen kurzfristig lösbar sein. Mit zusätzlichem Wissen aus der Versorgungsforschung würde die Neuausrichtung des Gesundheitssystems auf die Interessen der Patienten und Bürger zusätzliche Dynamik gewinnen.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Swiss Medical Forum - Schweizerisches Medizin-Forum</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.4414/smf.2015.02416</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-17T07:14:43+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3231</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2017</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>27</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>29</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>6</issue>
    <volume>17</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>ROUTLEDGETAYLOR &amp; FRANCIS</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Transparency of Conflicts of Interest: A Mixed Blessing? The Patients' Perspective</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">American Journal of Bioethics</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1080/15265161.2017.1313338</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-17T07:14:43+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="BegutachtungStatus">peer-reviewed</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>Cora Koch</author>
    <author>Marlene Stoll</author>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <author>Klaus Lieb</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>DISCLOSURE</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3286</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2018</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst>174</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>178</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <volume>94</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Deutscher Ärzteverlag</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">"Quartäre Prävention" oder die Verhinderung nutzloser Medizin</title>
    <abstract language="deu">Nicht alles, was statistisch signifikant ist, ist auch klinisch relevant. Statistische Signifikanz vorausgesetzt, kann die Frage der Relevanz für die meisten Problemstellungen nur individuell beantwortet werden. Die entscheidende Kennzahl dafür ist die Effektgröße einer Maßnahme, wie sie sich vor allem aus randomisiert kontrollierten Studien ergibt. Kleine Therapieeffekte können im Individualfall relevant sein, auch wenn sie für die meisten Patienten entbehrlich sind – und umgekehrt. In diesem Artikel geht es um quartäre Prävention: die Verhinderung irrelevanter oder nutzloser Medizin. Die Unterscheidung zwischen „illness“ (Leiden des Patienten) und „disease“ (Diagnose des Arztes) ermöglicht ein besseres Verständnis der präventiven Aufgaben der Primärmedizin und erleichtert die Abgrenzung von sinnvoller zu nutzloser Medizin. Man kann mithilfe dieser Differenzierung die Prävention in vier Formen einteilen: Primäre Prävention – der Einsatz medizinischer Maßnahmen, obwohl der Patient kein Leiden verspürt und auch keine Diagnose vorliegt, wie zum Beispiel Impfungen. Sekundäre Prävention – Früherkennungsmaßnahmen bei Personen mit Risikofaktoren, die aber bisher nicht krank sind. Tertiäre Prävention – Verhinderung weiterer Ereignisse bei bereits erkrankten Patienten. Die quartäre Prävention meint im weiteren Sinne die Verhinderung nutzloser Medizin und bezieht sich auf die in der Primärmedizin häufige Situation, dass zwar ein Leiden vorliegt, ärztlicherseits jedoch keine behandlungsbedürftige Krankheit diagnostiziert werden kann (und man deshalb mit Diagnostik und Therapie besonders zurückhaltend sein sollte).</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="url">https://www.online-zfa.de/archiv/ausgabe/artikel/zfa-4-2018/49407-quartaere-praevention-oder-die-verhinderung-nutzloser-medizin/</identifier>
    <identifier type="url">https://www.online-zfa.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Kuehlein_Quartaere_Praevention.pdf</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-29T05:54:04+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="BegutachtungStatus">peer-reviewed</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>Thomas Kühlein</author>
    <author>Thomas Maibaum</author>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>nutzlose Medizin</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Primärmedizin</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Quartäre Prävention</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3280</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2017</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst>63</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>67</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>3-4</issue>
    <volume>71</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Nomos</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">Überversorgung und Unterversorgung</title>
    <abstract language="deu">Überversorgung und Unterversorgung fügen Patienten beträchtliche Schäden zu und bedeuten eine Verschleuderung von Ressourcen. Als Problem werden sie zunehmend anerkannt und nicht mehr ignoriert oder geleugnet. Die Entwicklung einer Strategie zur Minderung von Überversorgung und Unterversorgung und einer Gesundheitsversorgung, in der die Patienten darauf vertrauen können, Leistungen zu erhalten, die ihrem objektiven und subjektiven Bedarf entsprechen, steht aus und ist ein ethischer und politischer Imperativ. Dieser Beitrag fokussiert auf Überversorgung und Unterversorgung infolge unzureichende Berücksichtigung der Patientenpräferenz sowie auf Maßnahmen und Strategien, die Patientenorientierung in der Versorgung zu stärken.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="deu">G &amp; S : Gesundheits- und Sozialpolitik</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.5771/1611-5821-2017-3-4-63</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-29T05:54:04+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>4234</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2018</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst>338</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>342</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Schattauer</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Stuttgart</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">Wer zahlt, wenn es nichts nützt? : Leistungen und Kosten</title>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Ärztliche Kommunikation: Praxisbuch zum Masterplan Medizinstudium 2020</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="isbn">978-3-608-43252-7</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-06-08T14:08:43+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">true</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>4277</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2016</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst>40</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>45</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Bundeszentrale für Gesundheitliche Aufklärung</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">Gesundheitsinformationen richtig anbieten und Kompetenzen fördern</title>
    <abstract language="deu">Der Gedanke, Bürger und Patienten in ihrer Position im Gesundheitssystem durch Informationen zu&#13;
stützen und zu stärken hat in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten an Einfluss gewonnen. Hintergrund&#13;
ist der zunehmende Wunsch nach Selbstbestimmung in Gesundheitsfragen und die schwindende&#13;
Akzeptanz einer Arzt-Patient-Beziehung, die vom Paternalismus geprägt ist. Der Wunsch und das&#13;
Bedürfnis, sich eigenständig über Gesundheitsfragen zu informieren sind weit verbreitet, ebenso&#13;
wie der Wunsch, bei gegebenen unterschiedlichen Behandlungsmöglichkeiten darin unterstützt zu&#13;
werden, eine informierte Entscheidung zu treffen. Das Gesundheitssystem in Deutschland ist darauf&#13;
noch nicht ausreichend vorbereitet. Eine kritische Gesundheitskompetenz auf Seiten von Bürgern und&#13;
Patienten bzw. ihren Vertretern stellt ein wichtiges Element zur Durchsetzung der Patientenorientie-&#13;
rung im Gesundheitswesen dar.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Health Literacy/Gesundheitsförderung - Wissenschaftliche Definitionen, empirische Befunde und gesellschaftlicher Nutzen</parentTitle>
    <subTitle language="deu">Dokumentation des Werkstattgesprächs mit Hochschulen am 5. November 2015 in Köln</subTitle>
    <identifier type="isbn">978-3-946692-15-7</identifier>
    <identifier type="url">https://shop.bzga.de/pdf/60649200.pdf</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-06-08T14:28:40+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="OtherSeries">Gesundheitsförderung konkret ; 20</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">true</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>4278</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2016</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst>27</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>50</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Königshausen &amp; Neumann</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Würzburg</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">Wem dient die Medizin wirklich? Interessen, Zielkonflikte und Patientenwohl in der Klinik</title>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Interessen und Gewissen : Moralische Zielkonflikte in der Medizin</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="isbn">3-8260-6071-7</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-06-08T14:28:40+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="OtherSeries">Jahrbuch Ethik in der Klinik ; Band 9</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">true</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>4529</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2022</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>49</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>57</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume>171</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Elsevier</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Moving towards patient-centered care and shared decision-making in Germany</title>
    <abstract language="eng">The main focus of this paper is to describe the development and current state of policy, research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) in Germany. What is the current state in health policy? Since 2013, the Law on Patients' Rights has standardized all rights and responsibilities regarding medical care for patients in Germany. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information, and decisions based on a clinician-patient partnership. In addition, reports and action plans such as the German Ethics Council's report on patient well-being, the National Health Literacy Action Plan, or the National Cancer Plan emphasize and foster PCC and SDM on a policy level. There are a number of public organizations in Germany that support PCC and SDM. How are patients and the public involved in health policy and research? Publishers and funding agencies increasingly demand patient and public involvement. Numerous initiatives and organizations are involved in publicizing ways to engage patients and the public. Also, an increasing number of public and research institutions have established patient advisory boards. How is PCC and SDM taught? Great progress has been made in introducing SDM into the curricula of medical schools and other health care providers' (HCPs) schools (e.g., nursing, physical therapy). What is the German research agenda? The German government and other public institutions have constantly funded research programs in which PCC and SDM are important topics. This yielded several large-scale funding initiatives and helped to develop SDM training programs for HCPs in different fields of health care and information materials. Recently, two implementation studies on SDM have been conducted. What is the current uptake of PCC and SDM in routine care, and what implementation efforts are underway? Compared to the last country report from 2017, PCC and SDM efforts in policy, research and education have been intensified. However, many steps are still needed to reliably implement SDM in routine care in Germany. Specifically, the further development and uptake of decision tools and countrywide SDM trainings for HCPs require further efforts. Nevertheless, an increasing number of decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care. Also, recent implementation efforts are promising. For example, reimbursement by health insurance companies of hospital-wide SDM implementation is being piloted. A necessary next step is to nationally coordinate the gathering and provision of the many PCC and SDM resources available.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1016/j.zefq.2022.04.001</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">1865-9217</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-06-21T16:17:32+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="BegutachtungStatus">peer-reviewed</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">true</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>Pola Hahlweg</author>
    <author>Christiane Bieber</author>
    <author>Anna Levke Brütt</author>
    <author>Marie-Luise Dierks</author>
    <author>Jörg Dirmaier</author>
    <author>Norbert Donner-Banzhoff</author>
    <author>Wolfgang Eich</author>
    <author>Friedemann Geiger</author>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <author>Klaus Koch</author>
    <author>Mirjam Körner</author>
    <author>Hardy Müller</author>
    <author>Isabelle Scholl</author>
    <author>Martin Härter</author>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>swd</type>
      <value>Patientenorientierte Krankenpflege</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>swd</type>
      <value>Entscheidungsfindung</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>swd</type>
      <value>Patient</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>swd</type>
      <value>Deutschland</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>deu</language>
      <type>swd</type>
      <value>Gesundheitswesen</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Patient-centered care</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Patient involvement</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Shared decision-making</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Health policy</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Implementation</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3776</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2018</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>conferenceobject</type>
    <publisherName>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">104 Reducing unwarranted variations in frequency of coronary angiographies in germany by describing, understanding and modifying local practice</title>
    <abstract language="eng">Objectives &#13;
Germany has one of the highest numbers of coronary angiography worldwide. Nevertheless, we find a great variation between German regions for both, diagnostic coronary angiographies and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). We assume that this variation is not only due to variation in morbidity but also reflects factors such as guideline adherence, physician-patient communication and access to care.&#13;
In this mixed method project, we aim to first describe the variation of coronary angiographies and PCIs in different German regions. Secondly, we explore current practices and motives for (non-)adherences to guidelines in the diagnostic process of patients with suspected CHD. Based on these results, we consequently plan to develop a complex intervention (treatment pathway) to improve guideline adherence and thus appropriateness of coronary angiography.&#13;
&#13;
Method &#13;
The projects will be organized according to the recommendation of the Medical Research Council for the development and evaluation of complex interventions. The first study will use descriptive methods based on routine data of three German Health Care Insurances and registry data to describe status quo and associated factors of coronary angiography. The second study will use qualitative methods to understand barriers and facilitators of guideline adherence and medical decision making. Furthermore, we will discuss variations in care and thereby identify implementation targets for the planned treatment pathway. Based on this information, we will develop local treatment pathways in four selected regions. Relevant peers will develop the local pathway in group discussions. Using this bottom-up approach, we directly address implementation challenges.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, Poster and conversation presentations : Preventing Overdiagnosis, Abstracts, August 2018, Copenhagen</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111070.104</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-04-28T19:28:04+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="BegutachtungStatus">peer-reviewed</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>Navina Gerlach</author>
    <author>Kathrin Schlößler</author>
    <author>Joana Steinbuck</author>
    <author>Julian Bleek</author>
    <author>Christian Günster</author>
    <author>Ursula Marschall</author>
    <author>Udo Schneider</author>
    <author>Dirk Horenkamp-Sonntag</author>
    <author>Leonie Sundmacher</author>
    <author>Hans-Helmut König</author>
    <author>Uwe Zeymer</author>
    <author>Steffen Schneider</author>
    <author>Karl Werdan</author>
    <author>Michael Weber</author>
    <author>Corinna Schäfer</author>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <author>Ina Kopp</author>
    <author>Monika Nothacker</author>
    <author>Norbert Donner-Banzhoff</author>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2646</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2020</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>1</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>8</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>9</issue>
    <volume>10</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>BMJ Publishing Group</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Quantity and quality of conflict of interest policies at German medical schools</title>
    <abstract language="eng">OBJECTIVES: &#13;
To assess the quantity and evaluate the quality of policies and curricula focusing on conflicts of interests (COI) at medical schools across Germany.&#13;
DESIGN: &#13;
Cross-sectional study, survey of medical schools, standardised web search. &#13;
SETTING: &#13;
Medical schools, Germany.&#13;
PARTICIPANTS: &#13;
38 German medical schools. - INTERVENTIONS: We collected relevant COI policies, including teaching activities, by conducting a search of the websites of all 38 German medical schools using standardised keywords for COI policies and teaching. Further, we surveyed all medical schools' dean's offices. Finally, we adapted a scoring system for results we obtained with 13 categories based on prior similar studies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: &#13;
Presence or absence of COI-related policies, including teaching activities at medical school. The secondary outcome was the achieved score on a scale from 0 to 26, with high scores representing restrictive policies and sufficient teaching activities.&#13;
RESULTS: &#13;
We identified relevant policies for one medical school via the web search. The response rate of the deans' survey was 16 of 38 (42.1%). In total, we identified COI-related policies for 2 of 38 (5.3%) German medical schools, yet no policy was sufficient to address all COI-related categories that were assessed in this study. The maximum score achieved was 12 of 26. 36 (94.7%) schools scored 0. No medical school reported curricular teaching on COI.&#13;
CONCLUSIONS: &#13;
Our results indicate a low level of action by medical schools to protect students from undue commercial influence. No participating dean was aware of any curriculum or instruction on COI at the respective school and only two schools had policies in place. The German Medical Students Association and international counterparts have called for a stronger focus on COI in the classroom. We conclude that for German medical schools, there is still a long way to go.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">BMJ open</parentTitle>
    <subTitle language="deu">a cross-sectional study and survey</subTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039782</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-01-28T13:58:12+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="BegutachtungStatus">peer-reviewed</enrichment>
    <licence>Creative Commons - CC BY - Namensnennung 4.0 International</licence>
    <author>Peter Grabitz</author>
    <author>Zoe Friedmann</author>
    <author>Sophie Gepp</author>
    <author>Leonard U. Hess</author>
    <author>Lisa Specht</author>
    <author>Maja Struck</author>
    <author>Sophie Kira Tragert</author>
    <author>Tobias Walther</author>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Conflict of Interest</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Cross-Sectional Studies</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Curriculum</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Germany</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Humans</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Policy</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Schools, Medical</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othpublikationsherkunft" number="">Externe Publikationen</collection>
    <collection role="oaweg" number="">Gold Open Access- Erstveröffentlichung in einem/als Open-Access-Medium</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3158</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2009</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst>133</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>135</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <volume>103</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Elsevier</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">Interessenkonflikte und Beeinflussung</title>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1016/j.zefq.2009.03.023</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-17T06:33:09+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="BegutachtungStatus">peer-reviewed</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othpublikationsherkunft" number="">Externe Publikationen</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3188</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2014</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>8</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>10</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <volume>37</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Karger</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Physicians' and Patients' Knowledge of Cancer Screening - A Wake-Up Call</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Oncology research and treatment</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1159/000363459</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-17T06:53:51+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Overdiagnosis</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>United States</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3186</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2015</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>663</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>664</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>40</issue>
    <volume>112</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Ärzteblatt</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Patient Involvement as a Means to Improving Care Quality</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Deutsches Ärzteblatt international</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.3238/arztebl.2015.0663</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-17T06:53:51+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3190</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2015</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst>47</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>50</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <volume>23</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>De Gruyter</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">Positionspapier zur Weiterentwicklung der Gesundheitsversorgungsforschung und zu Themen für künftige Ausschreibungen von Forschungsvorhaben</title>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Public Health Forum</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1515/pubhef-2015-0019</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-17T06:53:51+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <author>Ullrich Bauer</author>
    <author>Robert Francke</author>
    <author>Marie-Luise Dierks</author>
    <author>Bernt-Peter Robra</author>
    <author>Rolf Rosenbrock</author>
    <author>Jürgen Windeler</author>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
    <collection role="oaweg" number="">Bronze Open Access - frei zugänglich aber ohne Lizenzhinweis</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3189</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2015</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>46</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <volume>23</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>De Gruyter</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">Positionspapier (Einführung)</title>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Public Health Forum</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1515/pubhef-2015-0018</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.date">2022-03-17T06:53:51+00:00</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">sword</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.import.user">importuser</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.doi.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="opus.urn.autoCreate">false</enrichment>
    <licence>Keine Lizenz - Es gilt das deutsche Urheberrecht: § 53 UrhG</licence>
    <author>David Klemperer</author>
    <collection role="institutes" number="FakSoz">Fakultät Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="othforschungsschwerpunkt" number="16314">Lebenswissenschaften und Ethik</collection>
    <collection role="oaweg" number="">Bronze Open Access - frei zugänglich aber ohne Lizenzhinweis</collection>
  </doc>
</export-example>
