Background: Self-rated health status (SRHS) is a reliable and valid measure for assessing the subjective and objective health of individuals. Previous studies have either focused predominantly on the elderly or investigated only a narrow range of factors potentially associated with SRHS. In examining student populations, these past studies were limited to single countries. The objectives of this study were to assess which candidate variables were independently associated with SRHS in university students, to compare these variables by country and by gender, and to investigate which of the variables was most important as a rating frame for SRHS. Methods: The data is from the Cross-National Student Health Survey, conducted in 2005 in universities in Germany, Bulgaria, and Poland (n = 2103; mean age = 20.7 years). SRHS was assessed with a single question using a five-point scale ranging from "excellent" to "poor". The study also measured a wide range of variables including: physical and psychological health, studying, social contacts/social support, and socio-demographic status. Results: Psychosomatic complaints (considered an aspect of physical health and, adjusted for psychological health) were the most important indicators in forming a rating frame for students' SRHS. There were few differences in the effects of variables associated with SRHS by gender (well-being: a measure of psychological health) and the variables associated with SRHS by country (well-being and self-efficacy). The remaining variables showed homogenous effects for both genders and for all three countries. Conclusion: The results suggest that SRHS can be reasonably used to compare students' health across countries. SRHS is affected by different physical, psychological and psychosomatic aspects of health; however, its strongest association is with psychosomatic complaints.

Background: Vaccination against COVID-19 has been available in Germany since December 2020. However, about 30% of the population report not wanting to be vaccinated. In order to increase the willingness of the population to get vaccinated, data on the acceptance of vaccination and its influencing factors are necessary. Little is known about why individuals refuse the COVID-19 vaccination. The aim of this study was to investigate the reasons leading to rejecting vaccination, based on posts from three social media sites. Methods: The German-language versions of Instagram, Twitter and YouTube were searched regarding negative attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. Data was extracted until a saturation effect could be observed. The data included posts created from January 20, 2020 to May 2, 2021. This time frame roughly covers the period from the first reports of the spread of SARS-CoV-2 up to the general availability of vaccines against COVID-19 in Germany. We used an interpretive thematic approach to analyze the data and to inductively generate codes, subcategories and categories. Results: Based on 333 posts written by 323 contributing users, we identified six main categories of reasons for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination: Low perceived benefit of vaccination, low perceived risk of contracting COVID-19, health concerns, lack of information, systemic mistrust and spiritual or religious reasons. The analysis reveals a lack of information among users and the spread of misinformation with regard to COVID-19 and vaccination. Users feel inadequately informed about vaccination or do not understand the information available. These information gaps may be related to information not being sufficiently sensitive to the needs of the target group. In addition to limited information for the general population, misinformation on the internet can also be an important reason for refusing vaccination. Conclusions: The study emphasizes the relevance of providing trustworthy and quality-assured information on COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination to all population groups. In addition, vaccinations should be easily accessible in order to promote the population’s willingness to be vaccinated.

Background: COVID-19 caused by a new form of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) first appeared in China end of 2019 and quickly spread to all counties of the world. To slow down the spread of the virus and to limit the pressure on the health care systems, different regulations and recommendations have been implemented by authorities, comprising amongst others the closure of all entertainment venues and social distancing. These measures have received mixed reactions, particularly from young individuals, with many not following available advice. Drawing on the information in social media discussion forums, the present study explores the reasons why people ignore the orders and recommendations of the authorities and why the authorities are unable to produce a shared sense of inclusion concerning protective measures against the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: Three open-access social media forums (Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube comments) were systematically searched with respect to COVID-19-related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours of individuals. The data was retrieved in the first 3 weeks of March 2020. Qualitative document analysis and qualitative content analysis were used as the methodical approach. The data was reviewed by all authors and jointly interpreted to minimise inconsistencies. Results: The study reveals that reasons such as information pollution on social media, the persistence of uncertainty about the rapidly spreading virus, the impact of the social environment on the individual, and fear of unemployment associated with inequality in the distribution of income lead people to ignore the orders and recommendations of the authorities. The findings suggest that government representatives and politicians could not produce a shared sense of inclusion concerning protective measures against the COVID-19 outbreak, due to not building trust among the public and taking concrete economic steps to satisfy them. Conclusion: In uncertain crises, transparency in the presentation of information and government policies emerge as influential determinants in creating social susceptibility and solidarity. The differences between social classes constitute one of the important factors that affect the decision-making mechanisms of individuals in determining the necessary steps to be undertaken in times of crisis.

Background: Scientific guidelines have been developed to update and harmonize exercise based cardiac rehabilitation (ebCR) in German speaking countries. Key recommendations for ebCR indications have recently been published in part 1 of this journal. The present part 2 updates the evidence with respect to contents and delivery of ebCR in clinical practice, focusing on exercise training (ET), psychological interventions (PI), patient education (PE). In addition, special patients’ groups and new developments, such as telemedical (Tele) or home-based ebCR, are discussed as well. Methods: Generation of evidence and search of literature have been described in part 1. Results: Well documented evidence confirms the prognostic significance of ET in patients with coronary artery disease. Positive clinical effects of ET are described in patients with congestive heart failure, heart valve surgery or intervention, adults with congenital heart disease, and peripheral arterial disease. Specific recommendations for risk stratification and adequate exercise prescription for continuous-, interval-, and strength training are given in detail. PI when added to ebCR did not show significant positive effects in general. There was a positive trend towards reduction in depressive symptoms for “distress management” and “lifestyle changes”. PE is able to increase patients’ knowledge and motivation, as well as behavior changes, regarding physical activity, dietary habits, and smoking cessation. The evidence for distinct ebCR programs in special patients’ groups is less clear. Studies on Tele-CR predominantly included low-risk patients. Hence, it is questionable, whether clinical results derived from studies in conventional ebCR may be transferred to Tele-CR. Conclusions: ET is the cornerstone of ebCR. Additional PI should be included, adjusted to the needs of the individual patient. PE is able to promote patients self-management, empowerment, and motivation. Diversity-sensitive structures should be established to interact with the needs of special patient groups and gender issues. Tele-CR should be further investigated as a valuable tool to implement ebCR more widely and effectively.

Background: Studies from European and non-European countries have shown that migrants utilize cervical cancer screening less often than non-migrants. Findings from Germany are inconsistent. This can be explained by several limitations of existing investigations, comprising residual confounding and data which is restricted to only some regions of the country. Using data from a large-scale and nationwide population survey and applying the Andersen Model of Health Services Use as the theoretical framework, the aim of the present study was to examine the role that different predisposing, enabling and need factors have for the participation of migrant and non-migrant women in cervical cancer screening in Germany. Methods: We used data from the ‘German Health Update 2014/2015’ survey on n = 12,064 women ≥20 years of age. The outcome of interest was the participation in cancer screening (at least once in lifetime vs. no participation). The outcome was compared between the three population groups of non-migrants, migrants from EU countries and migrants from non-EU countries. We employed multivariable logistic regression to examine the role of predisposing, enabling and need factors. Results: Non-EU and EU migrant women reported a lower utilization of cervical cancer screening (50.1 and 52.7%, respectively) than non-migrant women (57.2%). The differences also remained evident after adjustment for predisposing, enabling and need factors. The respective adjusted odds ratios (OR) for non-EU and EU migrants were OR = 0.67 (95%-CI = 0.55–0.81) and OR = 0.80 (95%-CI = 0.66–0.97), respectively. Differences between migrants and non-migrants were particularly pronounced for younger age groups. Self-rated health was associated with participation in screening only in non-migrants, with a poorer health being indicative of a low participation in cancer screening. Conclusions: The disparities identified are in line with findings from studies conducted in other countries and are indicative of different obstacles this population group encounters in the health system. Implementing patient-oriented health care through diversity-sensitive health services is necessary to support informed decision-making.