Objectives: Patients in oncological and palliative care (PC) often have complex needs, which require a comprehensive treatment approach. The assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve identification of patient needs and foster adjustment of treatment. This study explores occupational routines, attitudes and expectations of physicians and nurses with regards to a planned electronic assessment system of PROs. Methods: Ten physicians and nine nurses from various PC settings in Southern Germany were interviewed. The interviews were analysed with qualitative content analysis. Results: The interviewees were sceptical about the quality of data generated through a patient self-assessment system. They criticised the rigidity of the electronic assessment questionnaire, which the interviewees noted may not fit the profile of all palliative patients. They feared the loss of personal contact between medical staff and patients and favoured in-person conversation and on-site observations on site over the potential system. Interviewees saw potential in being able to discover unseen needs from some patients. Interviewees evaluated the system positively in the case that the system served to broadly orient care plans without affecting or reducing the patient-caregiver relationship. Conclusions: A significant portion of the results touch upon the symbolic acceptance of the suggested system, which stands for an increasing standardisation and technisation of medicine where interpersonal contact and the professional expertise are marginalized. The study results can provide insight for processes and communication in the run-up to and during the implementation of electronic assessment systems.

Background: Over recent years, the use of decision aids to promote shared decision-making have been examined. Studies on patient education and on continuing medical education for physicians are less common. This review analyzes intervention and evaluation studies on patient education and continuing medical education which aim to enhance shared decision-making. The following study parameters are of interest: Study designs, objectives, numbers of participants in the education courses, interventions, primary results, and quality of the studies. Methods: We systematically searched for suitable studies in two databases (Pubmed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) from the beginning of April through to mid-June 2016. Results: 16 studies from a total of 462 hits were included: Three studies on patient education and 13 studies on continuing medical education for physicians. Overall, the study parameters were heterogeneous. Major differences were found between the courses; how the courses were conducted, their length, and participants. Conclusions: The differences found in the studies made it difficult to compare the interventions and the results. There is a need for studies that systematically evaluate and further develop interventions in this area to promote shared decision-making.

Background Mental health and stress prevention aspects related to workplace in hospitals are gaining increasingly more attention in research. The workplace hospital is characterized by high work intensity, high emotional demands, and high levels of stress. These conditions can be a risk for the development of mental disorders. Leadership styles can hinder or foster work-related stress and influence the well-being of employees. Through leadership interventions, leaders may be encouraged to develop a stress-preventive leadership style that addresses both, the well-being of the leaders and of the subordinates. A comprehensive qualitative description of leaders’ experiences with interventions on the topic of stress-preventive leadership is yet missing in the literature. Therefore, we address leaders of middle management regarding the development of stress-preventive leadership styles through supporting interventions. The research questions are: How do leaders of middle management perceive their leadership role in terms of effectiveness in stress prevention? Which potentials and limits in the implementation of stress-preventive leadership are experienced? Methods The study follows a qualitative research design and content analysis. We conducted individual interviews with leaders of middle management (n = 30) of a tertiary hospital in Germany for the participatory development of an intervention. This intervention, consisting of five consecutive modules, addressed leaders of middle management in all work areas within one hospital. After participation in the intervention, the leaders were asked to reflect on and evaluate the implementation of the contents learned within focus group discussions. Overall 10 focus group discussions with leaders (n = 60) were conducted. Results The results demonstrate that leaders of middle management perceived potentials for a stress-preventive leadership style (e.g., reflection on leadership role and leadership behavior, awareness/mindfulness, and conveying appreciation). However, limits were also mentioned. These can be differentiated into self-referential, subordinate-related, and above all organizational barriers for the implementation of stress-preventive leadership. Conclusions Some of the organizational barriers can be addressed by mid-level leadership interventions (e.g., lack of peer-exchange) or possibly by adapted leadership interventions for top management (e.g., lack of stress-preventive leadership styles in top level management). Other organizational limits are working conditions (e.g., staff shortage) that can only be influenced by health policy decisions.

Background Symptom checkers (SCs) for laypersons’ self-assessment and preliminary self-diagnosis are widely used by the public. Little is known about the impact of these tools on health care professionals (HCPs) in primary care and their work. This is relevant to understanding how technological changes might affect the working world and how this is linked to work-related psychosocial demands and resources for HCPs. Objective This scoping review aimed to systematically explore the existing publications on the impacts of SCs on HCPs in primary care and to identify knowledge gaps. Methods We used the Arksey and O’Malley framework. We based our search string on the participant, concept, and context scheme and searched PubMed (MEDLINE) and CINAHL in January and June 2021. We performed a reference search in August 2021 and a manual search in November 2021. We included publications of peer-reviewed journals that focused on artificial intelligence- or algorithm-based self-diagnosing apps and tools for laypersons and had primary care or nonclinical settings as a relevant context. The characteristics of these studies were described numerically. We used thematic analysis to identify core themes. We followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist to report the study. Results Of the 2729 publications identified through initial and follow-up database searches, 43 full texts were screened for eligibility, of which 9 were included. Further 8 publications were included through manual search. Two publications were excluded after receiving feedback in the peer-review process. Fifteen publications were included in the final sample, which comprised 5 (33%) commentaries or nonresearch publications, 3 (20%) literature reviews, and 7 (47%) research publications. The earliest publications stemmed from 2015. We identified 5 themes. The theme finding prediagnosis comprised the comparison between SCs and physicians. We identified the performance of the diagnosis and the relevance of human factors as topics. In the theme layperson-technology relationship, we identified potentials for laypersons’ empowerment and harm through SCs. Our analysis showed potential disruptions of the physician-patient relationship and uncontested roles of HCPs in the theme (impacts on) physician-patient relationship. In the theme impacts on HCPs’ tasks, we described the reduction or increase in HCPs’ workload. We identified potential transformations of HCPs’ work and impacts on the health care system in the theme future role of SCs in health care. Conclusions The scoping review approach was suitable for this new field of research. The heterogeneity of technologies and wordings was challenging. We identified research gaps in the literature regarding the impact of artificial intelligence– or algorithm-based self-diagnosing apps or tools on the work of HCPs in primary care. Further empirical studies on HCPs’ lived experiences are needed, as the current literature depicts expectations rather than empirical findings.

BACKGROUND Symptom checkers (SCs) for laypersons’ self-assessment and preliminary self-diagnosis are widely used by the public. Little is known about the impact of these tools on health care professionals (HCPs) in primary care and their work. This is relevant to understanding how technological changes might affect the working world and how this is linked to work-related psychosocial demands and resources for HCPs. OBJECTIVE This scoping review aimed to systematically explore the existing publications on the impacts of SCs on HCPs in primary care and to identify knowledge gaps. METHODS We used the Arksey and O’Malley framework. We based our search string on the participant, concept, and context scheme and searched PubMed (MEDLINE) and CINAHL in January and June 2021. We performed a reference search in August 2021 and a manual search in November 2021. We included publications of peer-reviewed journals that focused on artificial intelligence- or algorithm-based self-diagnosing apps and tools for laypersons and had primary care or nonclinical settings as a relevant context. The characteristics of these studies were described numerically. We used thematic analysis to identify core themes. We followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist to report the study. RESULTS Of the 2729 publications identified through initial and follow-up database searches, 43 full texts were screened for eligibility, of which 9 were included. Further 8 publications were included through manual search. Two publications were excluded after receiving feedback in the peer-review process. Fifteen publications were included in the final sample, which comprised 5 (33%) commentaries or nonresearch publications, 3 (20%) literature reviews, and 7 (47%) research publications. The earliest publications stemmed from 2015. We identified 5 themes. The theme <i>finding prediagnosis</i> comprised the comparison between SCs and physicians. We identified the performance of the diagnosis and the relevance of human factors as topics. In the theme <i>layperson-technology relationship,</i> we identified potentials for laypersons’ empowerment and harm through SCs. Our analysis showed potential disruptions of the physician-patient relationship and uncontested roles of HCPs in the theme <i>(impacts on) physician-patient relationship.</i> In the theme <i>impacts on HCPs’ tasks,</i> we described the reduction or increase in HCPs’ workload. We identified potential transformations of HCPs’ work and impacts on the health care system in the theme <i>future role of SCs in health care.</i> CONCLUSIONS The scoping review approach was suitable for this new field of research. The heterogeneity of technologies and wordings was challenging. We identified research gaps in the literature regarding the impact of artificial intelligence– or algorithm-based self-diagnosing apps or tools on the work of HCPs in primary care. Further empirical studies on HCPs’ lived experiences are needed, as the current literature depicts expectations rather than empirical findings.