Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The 5.8 million Ukrainian refugees arriving in European countries must navigate varying healthcare systems and different and often unknown languages in their respective host countries. To date, there has been little exploration of the experiences, perceived differences, information and support needs of these refugees regarding the use of healthcare in Germany. Methods We conducted ten qualitative interviews with Ukrainian refugees living in Germany from February to May 2023, using Ukrainian, English and German language. The transcribed interviews were analysed using the qualitative content analysis method according to Kuckartz and Rädiker with the MAXQDA software. Results In general, participants consistently had a positive experience of the German healthcare system, particularly regarding the quality of treatments and insurance. Differences have been reported in the structure of the healthcare systems. The Ukrainian healthcare system is divided into private and state sectors, with no mandatory insurance and frequent out-of-pocket payments. Pathways differ and tend to focus more on clinics and private doctors. General practitioners, often working in less well-equipped offices, have only recently gained prominence due to healthcare system reforms. Initiating contact with doctors is often easier, with much shorter waiting times compared to Germany. Interviewees often found the prescription requirements for many medications in Germany to be unusual. However, the mentioned differences in healthcare result in unmet information needs among the refugees, especially related to communication, navigating the healthcare system, health insurance, waiting times and medication access. These needs were often addressed through personal internet research and informal (social media) networks because of lacking official information provided during or after their arrival. Conclusions Despite the positive experiences of Ukrainian refugees in the German healthcare system, differences in the systems and language barriers led to barriers using healthcare and information needs among refugees. The dissemination of information regarding characteristics of the German health care system is crucial for successful integration but is currently lacking. Trial Registration German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00030942, date of registration: 29.12.2022.

Background Germany has a statutory health insurance (SHI) that covers nearly the entire population and most of the health services provided. Newly arrived refugees whose asylum claim is still being processed are initially excluded from the SHI. Instead, their entitlements are restricted and parallel access models have been implemented. We assessed differences in realized access of healthcare services between these access models. Methods In Germany’s largest federal state, North Rhine-Westphalia, two different access models have been implemented in the 396 municipalities: the healthcare voucher (HcV) model and the electronic health card (eHC) model. As refugees are quasi-randomly assigned to municipalities, we were able to realize a natural quasi-experiment including all newly assigned refugees from six municipalities (three for each model) in 2016 and 2017. Using claims data, we compared the standardized incidence rates (SIR) of specialist services use, emergency services use, and hospitalization due to ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) between both models. We indirectly standardized utilization patterns first for age and then for the sex. Results SIRs of emergency use were higher in municipalities with HcV (ranging from 1.41 to 2.63) compared to emergency rates in municipalities with eHC (ranging from 1.40 to 1.71) and differed significantly from the expected rates derived from official health reporting. SIRs of emergency and specialist use in municipalities with eHC converged with the expected rates over time. There were no significant differences in standardized hospitalization rates for ACSC. Conclusion The results suggest that the eHC model is slightly better able to provide refugees with SHI-like access to specialist services and goes along with lower utilization of emergency services compared to the HcV model. No difference between the models was found for hospitalizations due to ACSC. Results might be slightly biased due to incompletely documented service use and due to (self-) selection on the level of municipalities with municipalities interested in facilitating access showing more interest in joining the project.

Digital short cognitive tests administered by medical assistants (MAs) in general practitioners' (GPs) practices have great potential for the timely identification of patients with dementia, because they can lead to targeted specialist referrals or to immediate reassurance of patients regarding their perceived concerns. However, integration of this testing approach into clinical practice requires good usability for the test itself, especially for cognitively impaired older adults. In this implementation study, the digital version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Duo was conducted by MAs in general practice. We tested if the interaction with the test is associated with usability problems for the patients and aimed to find additional relevant constructs that should be considered for the potential implementation of such digital tests into clinical practice. We focused the study on subjective success, usability, and workload as well as their association with the result of the cognitive test to assess whether the MoCA Duo can be implemented into general practice. In total, 10 GPs took part in the study. Within their practices, 299 GP patients (aged 51-97 years) with cognitive concerns completed the MoCA Duo administered by MAs. Subsequently, patients and MAs completed digital questionnaires regarding the interaction with the app. Usability was measured using the adapted System Usability Scale, and perceived workload using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index. For the perceived workload, we included an assessment of the patient by the MA. Results of the MoCA Duo were supplied to the GPs for their consultation with the patient. The results indicated good usability for the MoCA Duo. Self-assessment by the patients indicated that 64% (191/299) could perform in the test to the best of their ability, affected by their MoCA score. We found significant higher usability ratings by patients with better MoCA scores as well as by younger patients. Furthermore, the perceived workload showed overall medium workload. We found significant correlations between the subjective perceived workload of the patients and the assessment by MAs. Self-assessments as well as assessments by the MAs were significantly influenced by the MoCA scores and the age of the participants. The results indicate good usability of the digital MoCA within the sample, supporting the idea that the resulting scores are adequate to assess cognitive status without dependence on technological affinity. Furthermore, the results highlight the relevance of heterogenous samples for comparable evaluation studies, based on the significant effect of cognitive status and age on usability and workload.

Background Approximately 1.8 million people with dementia live in Germany and the number is expected to increase in the coming years. Between 360,000 and 440,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. General practitioners (GPs) are often the first point of contact for people with concerns about their memory performance or already noticed symptoms of dementia. However, structural barriers can hinder timely diagnosis by GPs, resulting in diagnoses frequently being made later in the disease’s progression. Tablet-based cognitive testing, carried out by medical assistants (MAs) in GP practices, is being tested in the iCreate feasibility study, and could facilitate detection of dementia, allowing those affected to receive timely treatment and support. However, the acceptance, user experience and perceived benefits and consequences of routine implementation of such a not established procedure remain unclear until now. Methods In this qualitative study, seven GPs, six MAs and eight patients were qualitatively interviewed regarding the acceptance, user experience of the tablet-based procedure and its implications for GP care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using newly developed guidelines, recorded, transcribed and analysed according to Kuckartz and Rädiker using MAXQDA. Results All respondent groups had a positive perception of the digital testing in GP practices. Interviewed MAs welcomed the new responsibilities, and patients gladly accepted the opportunity of cognitive assessment in response to their memory concerns. GPs supported delegating additional tasks to MAs. Patients found the digital testing tasks feasible to complete on the tablet and MAs also had positive experiences using the tablet as test administrators. All groups can generally envision a long-term implementation of the tests in practice, but also noted possible barriers, like the need for additional communication with specialists, limited time resources, and currently insufficient remuneration of cognitive testing. Conclusions The positive user experience and high acceptance of participants indicate that tablet-based cognitive testing in GP settings can be highly feasible and can thus lead to indicated specialist referrals. Consequently, the management of patients exhibiting dementia symptoms should increasingly commence in GP practices, receive adequate funding, and occur in close collaboration with other specialized disciplines.

IntroductionIn many countries, including Germany, newly arriving refugees face specific entitlement restrictions and access barriers to healthcare. While entitlement restrictions apply to all refugees who seek protection in Germany during the first months, the barriers to access depend on the model that the states and the municipalities implement locally. Currently, two different models exist: the healthcare voucher model (HcV) and the electronic health card model (eHC). The aim of the study is to analyse the consequences of these two different access models on newly arrived refugees’ realised access to healthcare.Methods and analysisThe random assignment of refugees to municipalities allows for a quasi-experimental design by comparing realised access to healthcare among refugees in six municipalities in North Rhine-Westphalia which have implemented HcV or eHC. We compare realised access to healthcare using ambulatory care sensitive conditions and health expenditure as outcome indicators, and use of emergency care, preventive care, psychotherapeutic or psychiatric care, and of therapeutic devices as process indicators. Results will be adjusted for aggregated information on age, sex, socioeconomic structure of the municipalities and density of general practitioners or specialists.Ethics and disseminationWe cooperated with local welfare offices and the statutory health insurance for data collection. Thereby, we were able to avoid recruiting large numbers of refugee patients immediately after arrival while their access and entitlement to healthcare are restricted. We developed an extensive data protection concept and ensured that all data collected are fully anonymised. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and summarised in reports to the funding agency.

Background Strong Hearts, Healthy Communities 2.0 (SHHC-2.0) was a 24-week cardiovascular disease prevention program that was effective in improving physical activity and nutrition behaviors and clinical outcomes among women in 11 rural New York, USA towns. This study evaluated the delivery of SHHC-2.0 to prepare the intervention for further dissemination. Methods This process evaluation was guided by the Medical Research Council recommendations and engaged program leaders and participants (i.e., women over age 40) using quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative evaluation included examination of enrollment and retention data, a participant survey, and a fidelity checklist completed after classes. Descriptive and comparative statistics were used to assess implementation measures: program reach, participant attendance, dose delivered, program length, perceived effectiveness, fidelity, and participant satisfaction. The qualitative evaluation included focus groups ( n  = 13) and interviews ( n  = 4) using semi-structured guides; audio was recorded and transcripts were deductively coded and analyzed using directed content analysis and iterative categorization approaches. Comparisons across towns and between intervention and waitlist control groups were explored. Results Average reach within towns was 7.5% of the eligible population (range 0.7-15.7%). Average attendance was 59.8% of sessions (range 42.0-77.4%). Average dose delivered by leaders was 86.4% of curriculum components (range 73.5-95.2%). Average session length was 51.8 ± 4.8 min across 48 sessions. Leaders’ perceived effectiveness rating averaged 4.1 ± 0.3 out of 5. Fidelity to curricular components was 81.8% (range 67.4-93.2%). Participants reported being “more than satisfied” with the overall program (88.8%) and the health benefits they obtained (72.9%). Qualitative analysis revealed that participants: (1) gained new knowledge and enjoyable experiences; (2) perceived improvements in their physical activity, nutrition, and/or health; (3) continued to face some barriers to physical activity and healthy eating, with those relating to social support being reduced; and (4) rated leaders and the group structure highly, with mixed opinions on the research elements. Conclusions SHHC-2.0 had broad reach, was largely delivered as intended, and participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the program and its health benefits. Our findings expand on best practices for implementing cardiovascular disease prevention programs in rural communities. Clinical trials Registration www.clinicaltrials.gov #NCT03059472.