Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41955249›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Scientific work and knowledge of scientific methods in local public health authorities (SCOPE) - wish or reality? Results of a semi-standardized cross-sectional survey of local public health authorities in Germany (Part 1).

Emily Piontkowski, Anja Herrmann, Hannah Richter, Sofie Wössner, Linda Eichner, Monika A Rieger, Stefanie Joos, Brigitte Joggerst, Karin Geffert, Rebecca Zöllner and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Emily PiontkowskiCentre for Public Health and Health Service Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5372-844X
Anja HerrmannCentre for Public Health and Health Service Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Hannah RichterCentre for Public Health and Health Service Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Sofie WössnerCentre for Public Health and Health Service Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Linda EichnerCentre for Public Health and Health Service Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Monika A RiegerCentre for Public Health and Health Service Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7855-3663
Stefanie JoosCentre for Public Health and Health Service Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Brigitte JoggerstGesundheitsamt Karlsruhe, Landratsamt Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Karin GeffertBaden-Wuerttemberg Federal State Health Office (LGA), Ministry of Social Affairs, Health and Integration, Stuttgart, Germany.
Rebecca ZöllnerGesundheitsamt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4999-3395
David HäskeCentre for Public Health and Health Service Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5190-3937

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Germany, there are efforts to strengthen scientific work in local public health authorities (LHA) to improve efficiency and effectiveness and to ensure quality in the public health service (PHS). This study looks at how LHA staff view their own knowledge of scientific methods, how often they apply these methods, and what scientific structures exist in LHA. An interdisciplinary team created a partially standardized online questionnaire for LHA staff. The survey covered demographics, attitudes towards scientific work in PHS, knowledge of scientific methods, existing research structures in LHA, and participation in research projects. The responses were analysed for both absolute and relative frequencies. The results show that the respondents rarely work scientifically, despite having the necessary knowledge. A comparison of the departments within LHA shows that staff from the field of health reporting gave the highest overall figures for knowledge and frequency of use. Almost three quarters of respondents had not been involved in scientific publications in the last five years. More than half of the respondents do not have access to scientific software or do not use it. Most respondents indicated a need for further training or counselling in scientific methods. These findings indicate that there is a discrepancy between knowledge and practical application of scientific methods and suggest that limited use of scientific methods in LHA is less a matter of motivation than of insufficient structural support. Targeted measures, such as the provision of suitable software or the further development of training and counselling programs could help strengthen, scientific work in LHA and thus improve quality and strengthen the PHS. Addressing barriers such as the insufficient legal and organizational anchoring, limited structural and human resources, and the lack of leadership culture that prioritizes scientific work, may help support evidence-based public health and informed decision-making.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePublic HealthCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41955249
PMCPMC13065011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.