FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Physical activity advice from general practitioners in Germany: findings from a cross-sectional population survey of individuals with chronic ischaemic heart disease (OptiCor study)

Por: Hoppe · S. · Prinz · A. · Kotz · D. · Mons · U. · Kuss · O. · Crutzen · R. · Kastaun · S.
Objectives

The current German treatment guideline for chronic ischaemic heart disease (IHD) recommends that general practitioners (GPs) deliver brief advice on physical activity (PA) to patients with IHD. Such advice consists of at least three elements (ie, 3As): (1) assessing the PA level, (2) advising on PA and (3) assisting with recommendations. This study examined the extent to which individuals with self-reported IHD in Germany reported the receipt of such advice.

Design

Cross-sectional population-based face-to-face survey (from June 2023 to August 2024).

Setting

Households across Germany.

Participants

1004 individuals aged 35+ years with self-reported IHD and GP contact.

Outcome measures

Primary outcome: self-reported proportions of receipt of GP-delivered PA advice according to the 3As. Main secondary outcome: associations between person characteristics and the likelihood of receiving PA advice.

Results

Among individuals with self-reported IHD, 36.4% (95% CI 33.4% to 39.4%) received all 3As of PA advice, 42.1% (95% CI 39.1% to 45.2%) received one or two elements, 9.9% (95% CI 8.1% to 11.8%) received no advice at all and 3.8% (95% CI 2.7% to 5.1%) were advised to avoid PA (7.9% did not remember/refused to answer). Women (vs men) were more likely to receive no advice (OR=1.74, 95% CI 1.11% to 2.72%), while middle (vs younger) aged individuals (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.22% to 0.99%), those with PA levels of 1–149 min/week (vs no PA; OR=0.16, 95% CI 0.08% to 0.31%) and of 150+ min/week (vs no PA; OR=0.13, 95% CI 0.07% to 0.23%) and those with higher (vs lower) education (OR=0.39, 95% CI 0.20% to 0.76%) were less likely to receive no advice. Individuals living in urban (vs rural) areas (OR=0.65, 95% CI 0.46% to 0.88%) and those with PA levels of 1–149 min/week (vs no PA; OR=0.59, 95% CI 0.37% to 0.95%) and of 150+ min/week (vs no PA; OR=0.55, 95% CI 0.36% to 0.84%) were less likely to receive only one or two (vs all) of the 3As. Of those who received at least one element of advice (n=788), 72.5% reported they were more active afterwards, with a higher proportion when all 3As (vs only some elements) were provided (86.8% vs 59.6%).

Conclusions

Only one-third of individuals with self-reported IHD in Germany received comprehensive PA advice. Specific person characteristics, such as female gender and lower education, were associated with lower proportions of received PA advice. Efforts are needed to improve GP-led PA guidance, particularly for underserved groups.

Trial registration number

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00031304).

Treatment outcomes of paul versus ahmed glaucoma implants

by Julia Prinz, Kira Hilmers, Constance Liegl, Peter Walter, Karl Mercieca, Verena Prokosch

Objectives

To compare the outcomes of Paul (PGI) and Ahmed glaucoma implants (AGI) in patients with complex glaucoma.

Methods

64 patients undergoing PGI and 40 patients undergoing AGI were included in this study. Intraocular pressure (IOP), the number of IOP-lowering eye drops, and complications were evaluated during an 18-month follow-up.

Results

At 18 months, follow-up was completed by 26 patients (65.0%) in the AGI group and 45 patients (70.3%) in the PGI group. IOP was significantly reduced 18 months following PGI (12.3 ± 4.0 vs. 28.0 ± 9.3 mmHg, p  Conclusion

Both PGI and AGI effectively reduced IOP and the number of IOP-lowering eye drops over an 18-month follow-up period. The PGI demonstrated significantly greater reductions in IOP and IOP-lowering eye drops than AGI at 18 months. The safety profiles of PGI and AGI were comparable.

What are the barriers and facilitators to the acceptance of information and communication technology-based interventions for improving resilience and mental health of healthcare workers: a scoping review protocol

Por: Alves · E. · Rodrigues · R. · Fonseca · C. · Lopes · M. · Faria · I. · Dalkner · N. · Barach · P. · Folkvord · F. · Carlson · J. I. · Reininghaus · E. · Wessa · M. · Prinzellner · Y. · Leung · V. · Turk · E. · de Pinho · L. G. · on behalf of the XR2ESILIENCE team members
Introduction

Healthcare workers (HCWs) report overwhelming demands and experience crisis levels of burnout and unique challenges that further impair their mental health. Promotion of mental health among HCWs using information and communication technology (ICT) has received little empirical research attention and interventions for improving mental health resilience in HCWs are not well established.

Design

Scoping review to map existing evidence and identify gaps for future research regarding the main barriers and facilitators of the acceptance of ICT-based interventions for improving resilience and mental health among HCWs working in all healthcare settings.

Methods and analysis

This protocol was developed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A comprehensive bibliographic search will be conducted between October 2024 and October 2025 in Pubmed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library and CINAHL Ultimate (MedicLatina, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection), with the assistance of a qualified research librarian, to retrieve studies describing data on the main barriers and facilitators to the acceptance of ICT-based interventions for improving resilience and mental health among HCWs working in healthcare settings. There will be no restrictions based on date of publication or language. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be defined for each element of the PICO(D) framework, and both quantitative and qualitative data will be extracted. Quality will be assessed using the mixed methods assessment tool. Two independent investigators will perform the eligibility assessment and data extraction, and any disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. The main results will be narratively synthesised and analysed.

Ethics and dissemination

Since secondary data will be analysed, no ethical approval is required. The results will be disseminated through publications subject to peer review.

Registration

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5R36Q.

❌