ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2025
[Guidelines Within And For Public Health Services: Results Of An Online Survey On Current Practical Needs].
Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Cooperation between science and practice in public health services: a systematic mapping from 2015 to 2024].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence-based guidelines are recognized and well-established in everyday medical practice. However, in the Public Health Service (PHS), evidence-based guidelines are not yet widely available. To promote the development of guidelines within and for the ÖGD, the Federal Joint Committee (GBA) issued a funding directive in June 2024. This study presents the results of an online survey on the prioritization of guideline topics in the ÖGD, conducted by the German Society for Public Health Services (DGÖG). The survey focused on 17 guideline topics proposed by the GBA, which were divided into six task areas. Out of over 900 participants, comprehensive responses from nearly 500 respondents were analyzed, 85% of whom work in local health departments. The results showed that all 17 guideline topics were assigned high or very high priority. Particularly frequently prioritized were the areas of infection hygiene monitoring, medical expert assessment, and psychosocial emergency care. Additionally, experts highlighted dental screening, health literacy on oral health, and monitoring of drinking and bathing water. The qualitative analysis further identified additional relevant topics, including health reporting and planning, health promotion and prevention, child welfare, as well as crisis management and communication. The survey provides insights into the priority topics for guidelines as perceived by practitioners and ÖGD researchers. The results underscore the significant need for evidence-based guidelines in and for the ÖGD and provide valuable insights for further development and prioritization.
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.