Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36292361›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry.

Joerg Haier, Johannes Beller, Kristina Adorjan, Stefan Bleich, Moritz de Greck, Frank Griesinger, Markus Heppt, René Hurlemann, Soeren Torge Mees, Alexandra Philipsen and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Workload and mental health of nursing staff in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic-a scoping review].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncological care in Germany: rapid review.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Joerg HaierHannover Medical School, Comprehensive Cancer Center Hannover, 30625 Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1278-9438
Johannes BellerHannover Medical School, Comprehensive Cancer Center Hannover, 30625 Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3041-9895
Kristina AdorjanDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital, 80539 Munich, Germany.
Stefan BleichDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Moritz de GreckDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Frank GriesingerDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Pius-Hospital Oldenburg, Carl von Ossietzky University, 26121 Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6822-5498
Markus HepptDepartment of Dermatology, Erlangen University Hospital, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4603-1825
René HurlemannDepartment of Psychiatry, Carl von Ossietzky University, 26121 Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2628-565X
Soeren Torge MeesDepartment of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Friedrichstadt General Hospital, 01067 Dresden, Germany.
Alexandra PhilipsenDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Gernot RohdeDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Georgia SchillingDepartment of Hematology, Oncology, Palliative Care and Rheumatology, Asklepios Tumorzentrum, 22763 Hamburg, Germany.
Karolin TrautmannDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Stephanie E CombsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Siegfried GeyerMedical Sociology Unit, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Juergen SchaefersHannover Medical School, Comprehensive Cancer Center Hannover, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DECarl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg · DEKrankenhaus Dresden-Friedrichstadt · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEMammazentrum Hamburg · DEPius Hospital Oldenburg · DETUM Klinikum · DEUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DEUniversity Hospital Bonn · DE

Funding

egePan Unimed funded by the BMBF as part of the Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin (NUM) initiative 01KX2021German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) for the projects: "OnCoVID" 01KI2098A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting “Decisional Uncertainty” provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for “Decisional Conflicts” included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals.

Indexed as

COVID-19decision conflictsmoral distressoncologypsychiatryuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID36292361
PMCPMC9602416
OpenAlexW4297988569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.