ArticleBMC health services research2022
Attitude toward second opinions in Germany - a survey of the general population.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Potential of a Telemedical, Inpatient-Outpatient Care Concept to Improve the Quality of Healthcare from the User's Perspective - An Acceptance Analysis of the TELnet@NRW Study].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2024Trial
- A photograph of the researcher on the invitation letter did not affect the participation rate of a postal survey: a randomized study within a trial (SWAT).BMC medical research methodology · 2022Trial
- Patient-driven second opinions in oncology: a review.The oncologist · 2026Review
- Benefits and challenges of asynchronous telemedicine in obtaining a second opinion: a qualitative interview study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Second Opinion Referrals of Cancer Patients in Japan-A Nationwide Study.Cancer science · 2025Article
- Does the second opinion directive in Germany reach the patient? A parallel-convergent mixed-methods study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Second opinion and time to knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study of 142 patients.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Second opinion opportunity declined: patient typology and experiences regarding the decision-making process preceding elective surgeries in Germany.BMC health services research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSecond medical opinions (SOs) can assist patients in making informed treatment decisions and improve the understanding of their diagnosis. In Germany, there are different approaches to obtain a structured SO procedure: SO programs by health insurers and SOs according to the SO Directive. Through a direct survey of the population, we aimed to assess how structured SOs should be provided to fulfil patients' needs.
methodsA stratified sample of 9990 adults (≥18 years) living in the federal states of Berlin and Brandenburg (Germany) were initially contacted by post in April and sent a reminder in May 2020. The survey results were analyzed descriptively.
resultsAmong 1349 participants (response rate 14%), 56% were female and the median age was 58 years (interquartile range (IQR) 44-69). Participants wanted to be informed directly and personally about the possibility of obtaining an SO (89%; 1201/1349). They preferred to be informed by their physician (93%; 1249/1349). A majority of participants would consider it important to obtain an SO for oncological indications (78%; 1049/1349). Only a subset of the participants would seek an SO via their health insurer or via an online portal (43%; 577/1349 and 16%; 221/1349). A personally delivered SO was the preferred route of SO delivery, as 97% (1305/1349) would (tend to) consider this way of obtaining an SO. Participants were asked to imagine having moderate knee pain for years, resulting in a treatment recommendation for knee joint replacement. They were requested to rate potential qualification criteria for a physician providing the SO. The criteria rated to be most important were experience with the recommended diagnosis/treatment (criterion (very) important for 93%; 1257/1349) and knowledge of the current state of research (criterion (very) important for 86%; 1158/1349). Participants were willing to travel 60 min (median; IQR 60-120) and wait 4 weeks (median; IQR 2-4) for their SO in the hypothetical case of knee pain.
conclusionIn general, SOs were viewed positively. We found that participants have clear preferences regarding SOs. We propose that these preferences should be taken into account in the future design and development of SO programs.
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.