Purpose: The burden of herpes zoster (HZ) is substantial and numerous chronic underlying conditions are known as predisposing risk factors for HZ onset. Thus, a comprehensive study is needed to synthesize existing evidence. This study aims to comprehensively identify these risk factors.Methods: A systematic literature search was done using MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies published from January 1, 2003 to January 1, 2023. A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled Odds Ratios (OR). Heterogeneity was assessed using theI²statistic. For sensitivity analyses basic outlier removal, leave-one-out validation and Graphic Display of Heterogeneity (GOSH) plots with different algorithms were employed to further analyze heterogeneity patterns. Finally, a multiple meta-regression was conducted.Results: Of 6392 considered records, 80 were included in the meta-analysis. 21 different conditions were identified as potential risk factors for HZ: asthma, autoimmune disorders, cancer, cardiovascular disorders, chronic heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), depression, diabetes, digestive disorders, endocrine and metabolic disorders, hematological disorders, HIV, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), mental health conditions, musculoskeletal disorders, neurological disorders, psoriasis, renal disorders, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and transplantation. Transplantation was associated with the highest risk of HZ (OR = 4.51 (95% CI [1.9–10.7])). Other risk factors ranged from OR = 1.17–2.87, indicating an increased risk for all underlying conditions. Heterogeneity was substantial in all provided analyses. Sensitivity analyses showed comparable results regarding the pooled effects and heterogeneity.Conclusions: This study showed an increased risk of HZ infections for all identified factors.

Introduction Worldwide, polypharmacy and medication appropriateness-related outcomes (MARO) are growing public health concerns associated with potentially inappropriate prescribing, adverse health effects, and avoidable costs to health systems. Continuity of care (COC) is a cornerstone of high-quality care that has been shown to improve patient-relevant outcomes. However, the relationship between COC and polypharmacy/MARO has not been systematically explored. Objective The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the operationalization of COC, polypharmacy, and MARO as well as the relationship between COC and polypharmacy/MARO. Methods We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. Quantitative observational studies investigating the associations between COC and polypharmacy and/or COC and MARO by applying multivariate regression analysis techniques were eligible. Qualitative or experimental studies were not included. Information on the definition and operationalization of COC, polypharmacy, and MARO and reported associations was extracted. COC measures were assigned to the relational, informational, or management dimension of COC and further classified as objective standard, objective non-standard, or subjective. Risk of bias was assessed by using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results Twenty-seven studies were included. Overall, substantial differences existed in terms of the COC dimensions and related COC measures. Relational COC was investigated in each study, while informational and management COC were only covered among three studies. The most frequent type of COC measure was objective non-standard (n = 16), followed by objective standard (n = 11) and subjective measures (n = 3). The majority of studies indicated that COC is strongly associated with both polypharmacy and MARO, such as potentially inappropriate medication (PIM), potentially inappropriate drug combination (PIDC), drug–drug interaction (DDI), adverse drug events (ADE), unnecessary drug use, duplicated medication, and overdose. More than half of the included studies (n = 15) had a low risk of bias, while five studies had an intermediate and seven studies a high risk of bias. Conclusions Differences regarding the methodological quality of included studies as well as the heterogeneity in terms of the operationalization and measurement of COC, polypharmacy, and MARO need to be considered when interpreting the results. Yet, our findings suggest that optimizing COC may be helpful in reducing polypharmacy and MARO. Therefore, COC should be acknowledged as an important risk factor for polypharmacy and MARO, and the importance of COC should be considered when designing future interventions targeting these outcomes.

Background: Physician autonomy has been found to play a role in physician acceptance and adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine. However, there is still no consensus in the literature on how to define and assess physician autonomy. Furthermore, there is a lack of research focusing specifically on the potential effects of AI on physician autonomy. Objective: This scoping review addresses the following research questions: (1) How do qualitative studies conceptualize and assess physician autonomy? (2) Which aspects of physician autonomy are addressed by these studies? (3) What are the potential benefits and harms of AI for physician autonomy identified by these studies? Methods: We performed a scoping review of qualitative studies on AI and physician autonomy published before November 6, 2023, by searching MEDLINE and Web of Science. To answer research question 1, we determined whether the included studies explicitly include physician autonomy as a research focus and whether their interview, survey, and focus group questions explicitly name or implicitly include aspects of physician autonomy. To answer research question 2, we extracted the qualitative results of the studies, categorizing them into the 7 components of physician autonomy introduced by Schulz and Harrison. We then inductively formed subcomponents based on the results of the included studies in each component. To answer research question 3, we summarized the potentially harmful and beneficial effects of AI on physician autonomy in each of the inductively formed subcomponents. Results: The search yielded 369 studies after duplicates were removed. Of these, 27 studies remained after titles and abstracts were screened. After full texts were screened, we included a total of 7 qualitative studies. Most studies did not explicitly name physician autonomy as a research focus or explicitly address physician autonomy in their interview, survey, and focus group questions. No studies addressed a complete set of components of physician autonomy; while 3 components were addressed by all included studies, 2 components were addressed by none. We identified a total of 11 subcomponents for the 5 components of physician autonomy that were addressed by at least 1 study. For most of these subcomponents, studies reported both potential harms and potential benefits of AI for physician autonomy. Conclusions: Little research to date has explicitly addressed the potential effects of AI on physician autonomy and existing results on these potential effects are mixed. Further qualitative and quantitative research is needed that focuses explicitly on physician autonomy and addresses all relevant components of physician autonomy.

Strokes remain a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. The STROKE OWL study evaluated a novel case management approach for patients with stroke (modified Rankin Scale 0–4) or transient ischemic attack (TIA) who received support across healthcare settings and secondary prevention training from case managers for one year. The primary aim of this quasi-experimental study was a reduction in stroke recurrence. Here, we report the results of a health economic analysis of the STROKE OWL study, conducted in accordance with CHEERS guidelines. The calculations were based on claims data of cooperating statutory health insurance companies. In addition to a regression analysis for cost comparison, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was determined, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was carried out. In total, 1167 patients per group were included in the analysis. The intervention group incurred 32.3% higher direct costs (p < 0.001) than the control group. With a difference of EUR 1384.78 (95% CI: [1.2384–1.4143], p < 0.0001) and a 5.32% increase in hazards for the intervention group (HR = 1.0532, 95% CI: [0.7869–1.4096], p = 0.7274) resulting in an ICER of EUR 260.30, we found that the case management intervention dominated in the total stroke population, even for an arbitrarily high willingness to pay. In the TIA subgroup, however, the intervention was cost-effective even for a low willingness to pay. Our results are limited by small samples for both TIA and severe stroke patients and by claims data heterogeneity for some cost components, which had to be excluded from the analysis. Future research should investigate the cost-effectiveness of case management interventions for both severe stroke and TIA populations using appropriate data.

Background: Patients with open fractures often experience complications during their injury. The treatments incur high costs. Interdisciplinary cooperation between different medical disciplines may improve treatment outcomes. Such cooperation has not yet been envisaged in the German health care system. Objective: The aim of the study is to improve the treatment of fractures with open soft tissue damage or postoperative complications in terms of duration and sustainability in a region in northwest Germany. Largely standardized diagnostics and therapy are intended to optimize processes in hospitals. In addition, a reduction in the duration of treatment and treatment costs is to be achieved. Methods: Using a digital platform, physicians from 31 hospitals present patient cases to an interdisciplinary group of experts from the fields of plastic surgery, infectiology, hygiene, and others. The group of experts from the environment of the University Hospital Münster promptly makes a joint treatment recommendation for the individual case. The plan is to examine 3300 patients with open fractures or surgical complications. As consortium partners, there are also 3 statutory health insurance companies. The extent to which the therapy recommendations are effective and contribute to cost reduction in the health care system will be empirically investigated in a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design. In addition, medical and nonmedical professional groups involved in the project will be asked about their work in the project (in total, 248 clinic employees). The primary outcome is the complication rate of open fractures or the occurrence of postoperative complications. As secondary outcomes, the number of antibiotics administered, limb function, and quality of life will be assessed. The health economic evaluation refers to the costs of health services and absenteeism. For the work-related evaluation, workload, work engagement, work-related resources, readiness for technology, and ergonomic aspects of the new telemedical technology will be collected. In addition, clinic employees will give their assessments of the success of the project in a structured telephone interview based on scaled and open-ended questions. Results: The project started in June 2022; data collection started in April 2023. As of mid-June 2024, data from 425 patients had been included. In total, 146 members of staff had taken part in the questionnaire survey and 15 had taken part in the interviews. Conclusions: Standardized treatment pathways in the standard care of patients with open fractures and postoperative infections will be established to reduce complications, improve chances of recovery, and reduce costs. Unnecessary and redundant treatment steps will be avoided through standardized diagnostics and therapy. The interdisciplinary treatment perspective allows for a more individualized therapy. In the medium term, outpatient or inpatient treatment centers specialized in the patient group could be set up where the new diagnostic and therapeutic pathways could be competently applied. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00031308; https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00031308 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/57820

Purpose of Study: In terms of continuous and coordinated health care, cross-sectoral care structures are crucial. However, the German health care system is characterized by fragmentation of medical services and responsibilities. This fragmentation leads to multiple interfaces frequently causing loss of information, effectiveness, and quality. The concept of case management has the potential to improve cooperation between sectors and health care providers. Hence, a case management intervention for patients with stroke was evaluated with an acceptance analysis on the physicians' willingness to cooperate with stroke managers and their assessment of the potential of case management for the health care of patients with stroke. Primary Practice Settings: Primary practice settings included physicians working in the hospital, rehabilitation, and outpatient sectors who had actual or potential contact with a stroke case manager within the project region of East Westphalia-Lippe. Methodology and Sample: The analysis was conducted using a mixed-methods approach. Expert interviews were conducted in 2020. Afterward a questionnaire was developed, which was then distributed to physicians in 2021. Both the interviews and the questionnaire included questions on conceptual knowledge and concrete expectations prior of the project, on experiences during the project and on recommendations and physicians' assessment of future organization in health care to classify and describe the acceptance. Results: Nine interviews were conducted and 23 questionnaires were completed. Only slightly more than 50% of the physicians had prior knowledge of the case management approach. Overall, ambiguous results concerning the acceptance of case managers were revealed. Additional personal assistance for patients with stroke was seen as beneficial at the same time critical perspectives regarding further fragmentation of health care and overlapping of competences with existing professional groups or forms of health care were collected. General practitioners in particular were critical of the case management approach. Implications for Case Management Practice: From the physicians' point of view, at least two changes are necessary for the project approach to be integrated into standard care. First, the target group should be adapted according to the case management approach. Second, the delegation of tasks and responsibilities to case managers should be revised. The sectoral difference in the acceptance of case managers by physicians indicates that active cooperation and communication in everyday work has direct impact on the acceptance of a new occupational profession. Physician acceptance has a significant impact on the implementation of new treatment modalities and thus influences the overall quality of health care.