ORCID Profile
0000-0002-7232-2506
Current Organisations
Hochschule Konstanz University of Applied Sciences
,
University of Stuttgart
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: IEEE
Date: 06-2016
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2019
Publisher: IEEE
Date: 06-2016
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2018
Publisher: Institute of Applied Informatics, Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław
Date: 2016
DOI: 10.5277/E-INF160105
Publisher: Inderscience Publishers
Date: 2020
Publisher: IEEE
Date: 21-06-2021
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 02-2023
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2022-066270
Abstract: To undertake a synthesis of evidence-based research for seven innovative models of care to inform the development of new hospitals. Umbrella review. Interventions delivered inside and outside of acute care settings. Children and adults with one or more identified acute or chronic health conditions. PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL. Clinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, self-management and self-care and patient knowledge. A total of 66 reviews were included, synthesising evidence from 1272 primary studies across the 7 models of care. Virtual care was the most common model studied, addressed by 47 (73%) of the reviews. Common outcomes evaluated across reviews were clinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, self-care and self-management, patient knowledge, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The findings indicate that the innovative models of healthcare we identified in this review may be effective in managing patients with a range of acute and chronic conditions. Most of the included reviews reported evidence of comparable or improved care. A consideration of local infrastructure and in idual patient characteristics, such as health literacy, may be critical in determining the suitability of models of care for patients and their implementation in local health systems. 10.17605/OSF.IO/PS6ZU.
Publisher: IEEE
Date: 06-2019
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 27-05-2020
DOI: 10.1186/S13012-020-00991-3
Abstract: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) synthesize the best available evidence to guide clinician and patient decision making. There are a multitude of barriers and facilitators to clinicians adhering to CPGs however, little is known about active cancer treatment CPG adherence specifically. This systematic review sought to identify clinician attitudes, and perceived barriers and facilitators to active cancer treatment CPG adherence. A systematic search was undertaken of five databases Ovid Medline, PsychInfo, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and PROQUEST. The retrieved abstracts were screened for eligibility against inclusion criteria, and a full text review was conducted of all eligible studies. Data were extracted, and a quality assessment was conducted of all included studies. The qualitative papers were thematically analyzed. Attitudes, barriers, and facilitating factors extracted from the quantitative papers were categorized within the qualitative thematic framework. The search resulted in the identification of 9676 titles. After duplicates were removed, abstracts screened, and full texts reviewed, 15 studies were included. Four themes were identified which related to negative clinician attitudes and barriers to active cancer treatment CPG adherence: (1) concern over CPG content and currency of CPGs (2) concern about the evidence underpinning CPGs (3) clinician uncertainty and negative perceptions of CPGs and (4) organizational and patient factors. The review also identified four themes related to positive attitudes and facilitators to active cancer treatment CPG adherence: (5) CPG accessibility and ease of use (6) endorsement and dissemination of CPGs and adequate access to treatment facilities and resources (7) awareness of CPGs and belief in their relevance and (8) belief that CPGs support decision making, improve patient care, reduce clinical variation, and reduce costs. These results highlight that adherence to active cancer treatment CPG recommendations by oncology clinicians is influenced by multiple factors such as attitudes, practices, and access to resources. The review has also revealed many similarities and differences in the factors associated with general CPG, and active cancer treatment CPG, adherence. These findings will inform tailored implementation strategies to increase adherence to cancer treatment CPGs. PROSPERO (2019) CRD42019125748 .
Publisher: Inderscience Publishers
Date: 2022
Publisher: IEEE
Date: 06-2017
Publisher: IEEE
Date: 06-2017
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2021
No related grants have been discovered for Christina Ungerer.