ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2024
[Positive experiences of specialist assistants and physicians with respect to the delegation research project StaerkeR : Evaluation of the training and experiences within the framework of this project].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Influence of the treatment setting on the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis within the delegation to rheumatological specialist assistants - A post hoc analysis of the StärkeR study].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2025Trial
- [Rheumatological care in Germany : Memorandum of the German Society for Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology 2024].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2024Article
- Student-led clinics and ePROs to accelerate diagnosis and treatment of patients with axial spondyloarthritis: results from a prospective pilot study.Rheumatology international · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe delegation of medical services to rheumatology assistants (RFA) has proven to be safe and effective in the evaluation of the research project "StaerkeR". Afterwards, the experiences of the participating RFAs and rheumatologists with delegation were surveyed and discussed within the framework of an opinion research project.
methodsAt the end of the project, the participating RFAs and rheumatologists were surveyed via an online questionnaire (quantitative analysis) (21 questions for physicians and 44 questions for RFAs). In addition, focus group meetings were held for the RFAs, which were led by a moderator and a secretary. The results of the focus group sessions (qualitative analyses) were analyzed according to the structured method of Kuckartz.
resultsAll 31 RFAs and 25 rheumatologists involved in the project participated in the online surveys and 9 RFAs took part in the 2 focus groups. In the online surveys, both the RFAs and the rheumatologists gave predominantly good to very good ratings with respect to RFA training, the implementation of delegation in the practices and outpatient clinics, the role of the RFAs and the overall evaluation of the delegation concept. In the focus group discussions, many possible limitations regarding acceptance and implementation of the delegation concept were mentioned.
conclusionThe delegation of medical tasks to RFAs is a concept that is positively assessed and highly accepted by both sides, the rheumatologists and the RFAs. In a comparison between the individual practices and hospital outpatient departments, there is still a clear heterogeneity with respect to the willingness and logistical possibilities in the implementation of the delegation concept.
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.