ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2025
[Piloting an electronic death certificate (eTB app)-physicians' user experiences].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFunded by the Federal Ministry of Health, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, in cooperation with the Federal Statistical Office, developed an electronic death certificate app and tested it in two federal states to assess its user-friendliness and acceptance. Death certificates are filled out by hand and pass through various offices for transcription and coding before cause of death statistics are published. The certificates are often incorrect and difficult to read. In Germany, there are 16 different forms depending on the federal state, and none of them meet World Health Organization (WHO) requirements for international comparability.
methodsA mixed-methods approach was used with validated questionnaires and semi-structured guided interviews (February to September 2023). The quantitative data were analysed descriptively with SPSS and the qualitative data were analysed using content analysis with MAXQDA.
resultsIn two federal states, a total of 89 out of 201 physicians completed the surveys and a further 11 were interviewed. Almost all respondents (n = 70) have a positive attitude towards digitalisation in healthcare (94%), see a benefit in processes and organisation (93%) and have no concerns about data security (73%). The majority confirmed the user-friendliness of the eTB app. The qualitative data highlighted that plausibility checking, error prevention and improved readability were convincing arguments in favour of the eTB app.
conclusionThe eTB app is easy to use and useful. In particular, the fast data transfer makes the eTB app an important milestone in digitalization. Improvements are required for use in practice.
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.