ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2021
[Public Reporting on long-term Care Facilities in Germany: Current State and Evaluation of Quality Information].
Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceived experiences of long-term care services among long-term care insurance beneficiaries and their family members: A qualitative interview study in Hunan Province, China.International journal of nursing sciences · 2026Article
- Web-Based Public Reporting as a Decision-Making Tool for Consumers of Long-Term Care in the United States and the United Kingdom: Systematic Analysis of Report Cards.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLittle is known about public reporting on long-term care facilities. In this study, we (1) identify the websites that are available for a search on long-term care facilities in Germany, (2) describe them systematically with regard to general information and range of functions, 3) capture the information on quality available on the websites and 4) evaluate the extent to which they can be useful for those in need.
methods1) Systematic internet search to identify the websites. 2) Analysis of the websites with regard to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. 3) Data collection from the included websites. 4) Description of the general content and the range of functions of the websites. 5) Collection of quality-related information on long-term care facilities (structure, process and outcome quality, costs, quality inspections results, user feedback). 6) Evaluation of the usefulness of information by analyzing the information using a catalogue of criteria.
resultsA total of 24 websites were identified with information on long-term care facilities. Only 4 websites allowed a direct online comparison of several facilities and 17% allowed consumer feedback online. All websites provided information on structural quality, but none on the outcome quality. Across all websites, the usefulness of information for the consumers amounted to 19%. The thematic area on location and accessibility of a facility offered relatively detailed information (79%), while only to 9% was dedicated to the thematic area on care.
conclusionThere is a large number of websites that can be searched for information on long-term care facilities. They show a range of heterogeneous functions and information. More websites should offer a function of comparison of multiple facilities. With regard to the information available, consumer preferences do not yet seem to be sufficiently taken into account. Further researches should focus on the evaluation of the impact of outcome quality on decision-making and the analysis of the validity of consumer feedback.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.