Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37315565›Full record

ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2023

[Health Services research in Germany in Times of COVID-19: How Does the Pandemic Influence Research Processes, Methods and the Personal Situation of Researchers? An Online Survey].

Helge Schnack, Johanna Sophie Lubasch, Anna Zinkevich, Amelie Pawel, Sarah Anna Katharina Uthoff, Lena Ansmann, Milena von Kutzleben

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. 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

7 authors.

Helge SchnackAbteilung Organisationsbezogene Versorgungsforschung, Department für Versorgungsforschung, Fakultät für Medizin und Gesundheitswissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3912-1729
Johanna Sophie LubaschAbteilung Organisationsbezogene Versorgungsforschung, Department für Versorgungsforschung, Fakultät für Medizin und Gesundheitswissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4315-1816
Anna ZinkevichAbteilung Organisationsbezogene Versorgungsforschung, Department für Versorgungsforschung, Fakultät für Medizin und Gesundheitswissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1049-832X
Amelie PawelAbteilung Organisationsbezogene Versorgungsforschung, Department für Versorgungsforschung, Fakultät für Medizin und Gesundheitswissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Sarah Anna Katharina UthoffAbteilung Organisationsbezogene Versorgungsforschung, Department für Versorgungsforschung, Fakultät für Medizin und Gesundheitswissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6847-3793
Lena AnsmannAbteilung Organisationsbezogene Versorgungsforschung, Department für Versorgungsforschung, Fakultät für Medizin und Gesundheitswissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8628-7166
Milena von KutzlebenAbteilung Organisationsbezogene Versorgungsforschung, Department für Versorgungsforschung, Fakultät für Medizin und Gesundheitswissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8443-2593

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has a massive impact on social life, the healthcare system, and also on health services research. However, the effects of the pandemic on research processes, methods, and the personal situation of researchers has not been investigated so far. Guided by the question of how research processes and methods are adapted to the challenges posed by COVID-19 and how researchers perceive the impact of the pandemic on their personal situation, an online survey of health services researchers was conducted from June to July 2021. The results showed that a large proportion of research projects have had delays due to recruitment and/or data collection issues. Two-thirds of the respondents who had already collected data since the beginning of the pandemic (March 2020) were unable to collect data in the originally planned form and relied primarily on digital data collection methods. The analysis of the open-ended survey responses showed that the pandemic had a massive impact on all phases of the research process: key challenges included difficult field access, problems in achieving planned sample sizes, and concerns about data quality. Regarding their personal situation, researchers perceived the reduction of personal contacts, and the resulting lack of visibility as negative, while at the same time they benefited from the easy digital contact possibilities. Overall, the study provides an initial assessment of how the COVID-19 pandemic affected health services research and researchers. It shows that after the initial "shock" of the first lockdown in March 2020, pragmatic and often innovative ways were found to carry out projects under the pandemic conditions. However, the increased use of digital communication forms and data collection methods brings numerous challenges, but also methodological impulses.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsCommunicable Disease ControlGermanyHealth Services ResearchHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID37315565
PMCPMC10442905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.