Purpose: The objective of the analysis was to examine the relationships between sociodemographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, and behavioural factors and both physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in older adults. Methods: The analysis was based on recent cross-sectional data of 1687 community residents from a whole population postal survey of German adults aged 65 years and older (33% response rate, 52% female, mean age 76 years). HRQOL was assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36v2). For a differentiated analysis, hierarchical multiple linear regressions were performed. Results: An internal health locus of control, physical activity, social support, and income were positively associated with physical HRQOL (Adj. R² = 0.34; p < 0.001) and mental HRQOL (Adj. R² = 0.18; p < 0.001), whereas an external health locus of control and age were negatively associated with both. Alcohol use and educational level were positively associated only with physical HRQOL, whilst female gender was negatively associated only with mental HRQOL. Conclusion: Sociodemographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, and behavioural factors were associated with physical and mental HRQOL. These results highlight the importance of social factors in HRQOL and provide approaches for policy and practice to develop and implement tailored health interventions for older adults. Our findings may be transferable to municipalities in metropolitan areas of high-income European countries. Clinical trial registration: Not applicable.

Zusammenfassung: Risikokommunikation spielt eine zentrale Rolle in Public-Health-Notlagen: Sie muss informierte Entscheidungen ermöglichen, schützendes bzw. lebenserhaltendes Verhalten fördern und das Vertrauen in öffentliche Institutionen bewahren. Zudem müssen Unsicherheiten über wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse transparent benannt werden, irrationale Ängste und Gerüchte entkräftet werden. Risikokommunikation sollte die Bevölkerung partizipativ einbeziehen. Ihre Risikowahrnehmung und -kompetenz müssen kontinuierlich erfasst werden. In der aktuellen Pandemie der Coronavirus-Krankheit 2019 (COVID-19) ergeben sich spezifische Herausforderungen für die Risikokommunikation.Der Wissensstand zu vielen wichtigen Aspekten, die COVID-19 betreffen, war und ist oftmals unsicher oder vorläufig, z. B. zu Übertragung, Symptomen, Langzeitfolgen und Immunität. Die Kommunikation ist durch wissenschaftliche Sprache sowie eine Vielzahl von Kennzahlen und Statistiken geprägt, was die Verständlichkeit erschweren kann. Neben offiziellen Mitteilungen und Einschätzungen von Expertinnen und Experten wird über COVID-19 in großem Umfang in sozialen Medien kommuniziert, dabei werden auch Fehlinformationen und Spekulationen verbreitet; diese „Infodemie“ erschwert die Risikokommunikation.Nationale wie internationale Forschungsprojekte sollen helfen, die Risikokommunikation zu COVID-19 zielgruppenspezifischer und effektiver zu machen. Dazu gehören u. a. explorative Studien zum Umgang mit COVID-19-bezogenen Informationen, das COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO), ein regelmäßig durchgeführtes Onlinesurvey zu Risikowahrnehmung und Schutzverhalten sowie eine interdisziplinäre qualitative Studie, die die Konzeption, Umsetzung und Wirksamkeit von Risikokommunikationsstrategien vergleichend in 4 Ländern untersucht.

Community capacity building is an essential approach for health promotion, combining a participatory approach with the view to community ownership. Little research focuses on practical capacity building strategies and monitoring. Our paper looks into involving stakeholders in facilitated group discussions as a specific strategy for fostering capacity building processes. These processes focused on physical activity (PA) promotion in two German communities (ACTION4men). Along the dimensions of capacity building suggested in literature (e.g., problem solving, resource mobilization, leadership), we implemented two participatory stakeholder groups (1/community). These groups were motivated to develop and implement PA interventions for men >50 years. For measuring capacity building processes, a semi-standardized monitoring instrument was used to document all group meetings. Additionally, we conducted semi-standardized interviews with group participants and drop-outs to capture their perspectives on capacity building. All documents were analyzed using thematic analysis. We successfully established stakeholder groups that planned and implemented a range of local measures meant to increase PA among older men. In one community, the process was sustainable, whereby the group continued to meet regularly over years. Capacity building was successful to a certain degree (e.g., regarding participation, problem assessment, and resource mobilization), but stalled after first meetings. Capacity building processes differed between the two communities in terms of leadership and sustainability. The developed interventions mainly addressed the access to organized sport courses, rather than tackling walkability or active transport. The theoretical capacity building approach was successful to develop and implement programs aimed at promoting PA. The actual capacity building processes depend upon the composition of stakeholder groups and inherent power relations.

In daycare centres, the close contact of children with other children and employees favours the transmission of infections. The majority of children <6 years attend daycare programmes in Germany, but the role of daycare centres in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is unclear. We investigated the transmission risk in daycare centres and the spread of SARS-CoV-2 to associated households. 30 daycare groups with at least one recent laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 case were enrolled in the study (10/2020–06/2021). Close contact persons within daycare and households were examined over a 12-day period (repeated SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests, genetic sequencing of viruses, symptom diary). Households were interviewed to gain comprehensive information on each outbreak. We determined primary cases for all daycare groups. The number of secondary cases varied considerably between daycare groups. The pooled secondary attack rate (SAR) across all 30 daycare centres was 9.6%. The SAR tended to be higher when the Alpha variant was detected (15.9% vs. 5.1% with evidence of wild type). The household SAR was 53.3%. Exposed daycare children were less likely to get infected with SARS-CoV-2 than employees (7.7% vs. 15.5%). Containment measures in daycare programmes are critical to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially to avoid spread to associated households.

Studien zu komplementären und alternativen Heilverfahren (CAM) thematisieren häufig die Inanspruchnahme durch Patienten. Relativ wenig bekannt ist bislang zu Ausmaß, Struktur und v. a. Gründen des ärztlichen Angebots im niedergelassenen Bereich. 2 396 Vertragsärzte aller Fachrichtungen in 9 ausgewählten Regionen in Deutschland wurden gebeten, sich an einer Befragung mittels standardisiertem Fragebogen zu beteiligen. Der gültige Rücklauf betrug 23%. Im Zentrum der Erhebung standen das Spektrum des CAM-Angebots sowie dessen Motive und Anreize im ambulanten Bereich. 63% (n=350) der befragten Ärzte wenden CAM bei ihrer Praxistätigkeit an; meist werden Akupunktur/Traditionelle Chinesische Medizin, Phytotherapie oder Homöopathie angeboten. Mit 90% setzen Orthopäden CAM am häufigsten ein. Die Anreize und Motive für ein CAM-Angebot sind vielfältig; als „völlig zutreffend“ wurden eingestuft: Überzeugung von der Wirksamkeit (68%), Ausdruck für Therapiefreiheit (47%) und Nebenwirkungsarmut (34%). Lediglich 6% der CAM-Ärzte räumten finanzielle Vorteile (Abrechnung als Individuelle Gesundheitsleistungen, IGeL) im Zusammenhang mit CAM als „völlig zutreffend“ ein. CAM scheinen in den befragten Regionen Deutschlands ein fester Bestandteil des ambulanten ärztlichen Angebots zu sein. Die Befragungsergebnisse legen nahe, dass CAM im niedergelassenen Bereich eher als Ausdruck ärztlicher Therapiefreiheit denn als lukratives Trend­angebot zu werten sind. Aufgrund der vorlie­genden Rücklaufquote von 23% ist es denkbar, dass die Häufigkeit des CAM-Angebots in der vorliegenden Untersuchung überschätzt wurde. Research on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has mainly focused on CAM utilisation by patients. Fewer studies have analysed extent and structure of CAM provision or the reasons why physicians offer CAM as a therapeutic option in the outpatient setting. A standardised questionnaire was developed addressing reasons and patterns of CAM provision. The questionnaire was sent by post to 2 396 general practitioners and specialists in 9 selected German districts. 553 physicians participated in the survey (23%). 63% of the respondents (n=350) answered that they had provided some sort of CAM to their patients within a period of 12 months preceding the study. The most frequently provided methods were acupuncture/traditional Chinese medicine, herbal remedies and homeopathy. In the sample, 90% of the orthopaedists were CAM providers, the highest rate among the participating disciplines. Several reasons for offering CAM were identified: conviction of therapeutic effectiveness regarding the patient’s situation (68%), aspects of therapeutic freedom (47%) or less harmful side effects than conventional therapies (34%). 6% provide CAM for monetary reasons. Findings suggest that the provision of CAM is widespread in the German outpatient setting. However, it has to be taken into account that a selection bias may apply which may lead to an overestimation of CAM provision. Doctors’ reasons to offer CAM are manifold; therapeutic reasons seem to outweigh economic motives.