Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38467149›Full record

ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2024

[Health Promotion and Prevention of Non-Communicable Diseases by Public Health Departments in Baden-Württemberg during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of an Online Survey].

Achim Siegel, Daniela Hesmert, Jasmin Mangold, Anika Klein, David Häske, Sofie Wössner, Monika A Rieger, Stefanie Joos, Cornelia Mahler

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Achim SiegelInstitut für Arbeitsmedizin, Sozialmedizin und Versorgungsforschung, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Daniela HesmertInstitut für Allgemeinmedizin und Interprofessionelle Versorgung, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Jasmin MangoldInstitut für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Abteilung Pflegewissenschaft, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Anika KleinZentrum für öffentliches Gesundheitswesen und Versorgungsforschung (ZÖGV), Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
David HäskeZentrum für öffentliches Gesundheitswesen und Versorgungsforschung (ZÖGV), Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Sofie WössnerZentrum für öffentliches Gesundheitswesen und Versorgungsforschung (ZÖGV), Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Monika A RiegerInstitut für Arbeitsmedizin, Sozialmedizin und Versorgungsforschung, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Stefanie JoosInstitut für Allgemeinmedizin und Interprofessionelle Versorgung, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Cornelia MahlerInstitut für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Abteilung Pflegewissenschaft, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDisease prevention and health promotion are among the core tasks of German public health services (Öffentlicher Gesundheitsdienst - ÖGD), particularly local public health departments (Gesundheitsämter). Little is known about the extent to which the departments were able to continue activities in the field of health promotion and prevention of non-communicable diseases (HPP-NCDs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the example of public health departments in Baden-Württemberg (BW), we therefore investigated how much staff was available to the departments for HPP-NCDs services, how much staff was actually dedicated to HPP-NCDs during the COVID-19 pandemic, which HPP-NCDs activities were carried out during the pandemic, which were cancelled, and which should be resumed as a priority, according to the public health departments.

methodsWe developed a largely standardized online questionnaire for the survey of the 38 public health departments in BW. Per department one questionnaire was to be completed. The survey took place from 9/1/2022 to 11/4/2022. The data of this explorative cross-sectional study were analyzed in a descriptive-statistical manner using SPSS, version 28.

resultsOf the 38 departments, 34 participated in the survey (89%). Departments had a mean of 2.44 full HPP-NCDs staff as planned (median 2.00; SD 1.41; range 0.20-5.00). Under pandemic conditions, a mean of 1.23 full HPP-NCDs staff were deployed (median 0.95; SD 1.24; range 0.00-4.50). Respondents gave examples of 61 HPP-NCDs activities that were conducted under pandemic conditions, and they described 69 HPP-NCDs activities that had to be cancelled. Of the latter, respondents felt that 40 should be resumed as a matter of highest priority. Analysis of the priority activities to be resumed reveals characteristic differences: e. g., resumption of structural prevention activities was viewed more frequently as a matter of hightest priority than resumption of behavioral prevention activities.

conclusionsDuring the pandemic, local public health departments in BW deployed, on average, actually only half of their full staff allocated as planned to HPP-NCDs. Comparing different categories of HPP-NCDs activities (cancelled during the pandemic) in terms of the relative frequency with which their resumption is viewed as matter of highest priority, characteristic differences can be observed. It remains an open question which conclusions can be drawn from such differences.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health PromotionNoncommunicable DiseasesPandemicsGermanyHumansPublic HealthPublic Health AdministrationSARS-CoV-2Surveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38467149
PMCPMC11248641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.