The main strategy for combatting SARS-CoV-2 infections in 2020 consisted of behavioural regulations including contact reduction, maintaining distance, hand hygiene, and mask wearing. COVID-19-related risk perception and knowledge may influence protective behaviour, and education could be an important determinant. The current study investigated differences by education level in risk perception, knowledge and protective behaviour regarding COVID-19 in Germany, exploring the development of the pandemic over time. The COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring study is a repeated cross-sectional online survey conducted during the pandemic in Germany from 3 March 2020 (waves 1–28: 27,957 participants aged 18–74). Differences in risk perception, knowledge and protective behaviour according to education level (high versus low) were analysed using linear and logistic regression. Time trends were accounted for by interaction terms for education level and calendar week. Regarding protective behaviour, interaction terms were tested for all risk perception and knowledge variables with education level. The strongest associations with education level were evident for perceived and factual knowledge regarding COVID-19. Moreover, associations were found between low education level and higher perceived severity, and between low education level and lower perceived probability. Highly educated men were more worried about COVID-19 than those with low levels of education. No educational differences were observed for perceived susceptibility or fear. Higher compliance with hand washing was found in highly educated women, and higher compliance with maintaining distance was found in highly educated men. Regarding maintaining distance, the impact of perceived severity differed between education groups. In men, significant moderation effects of education level on the association between factual knowledge and all three protective behaviours were found. During the pandemic, risk perception and protective behaviour varied greatly over time. Overall, differences by education level were relatively small. For risk communication, reaching all population groups irrespective of education level is critical.

No abstract

The use of operations, visits to doctors and early diagnostic tests for children are examples of different services selected from the whole spectrum of preventative and therapeutic health service provisions in childhood and adolescence. In the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS), which is representative for Germany, 17,641 children and adolescents aged 0-17 or their parents were questioned on subjects such as their use of medical services. The use made of individual early diagnostic tests for children remains above the 90 % limit until the U7 test and drops to 89.0 % at U8, falling to 86.4 % at U9. 81 % of children took part in all the early diagnostic tests provided until age 6 (U3 to U9). Another 16 % only took advantage of some parts of this service and 3 % of the children never went to one of these check-ups. As was to be expected, the annual rate of visits to paediatricians drops as children get older from 95.1 % for 0-2-year-olds to 25.4 % of the 14-17-year-olds, while the rate of visits to general practitioners rises from 11.8 % to 53.1 %. If one tracks the rate of visits to specialist doctors all the way across childhood and adolescence, different paths emerge: while children aged 3-6 most often visit the ear, nose and throat doctor, at primary school age they mainly see opticians, and 14-17-year-olds most often visit doctors of internal medicine, dermatologists and surgeons. 37.1 % of the 0-17-year-old children and adolescents had undergone an operation. In order of declining frequency, the operations named were adenoidectomy (15.2 %), tonsillectomy (5.9 %), herniotomy (3.6 %) and appendectomy (2.4 %). Circumcisions had been carried out on 10.9 % of the boys. The different way medical services are used in different subgroups may not only depend on medical factors but also on social factors, medical attitudes and the availability of services provided.

BackgroundSocially disadvantaged people have an increased need for medical care due to a higher burden of health problems and chronic diseases. In Germany, outpatient care is chiefly provided by office-based general practitioners and specialists in private practice. People are free to choose the physician they prefer. In this study, national data were used to examine differences in the use of outpatient medical care by socioeconomic status (SES).MethodsThe analyses were based on data from 6,754 participants in the Robert Koch Institute’s German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1) aged between 18 and 69 years. The number of outpatient physician visits during the past twelve months was assessed for several medical specializations. SES was determined based on education, occupation, and income. Associations between SES and physician visits were analysed using logistic regression and zero-truncated negative binomial regression for count data.ResultsAfter adjusting for sociodemographic factors and health indicators, outpatients with low SES had more contacts with general practitioners than outpatients with high SES (men: incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08–1.46; women: IRR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.07–1.34). The use of specialists was lower in people with low SES than in those with high SES when sociodemographic factors and health indicators were adjusted for (men: odds ratio [OR] = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.51–0.91; women: OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.41–0.77). This applied particularly to specialists in internal medicine, dermatology, and gynaecology. The associations remained after additional adjustment for the type of health insurance and the regional density of office-based physicians.ConclusionThe findings suggest that socially disadvantaged people are seen by general practitioners more often than the socially better-off, who are more likely to visit a medical specialist. These differences may be due to differences in patient preferences, physician factors, physician-patient interaction, and potential barriers to accessing specialist care.

Background: Rising percentages of working mothers and increasing numbers of dual-earner couples are putting work-family conflicts on the agenda. Studies based on data from the US have already proven a link between work-family conflict and health in working parents with heterogeneous results for certain health outcomes and subgroups. Also, to date no comprehensive overview of the existing evidence regarding the impact of work-family conflict on health among European working parents exist. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to identify and analyze knowledge gaps regarding health-related consequences of work-family conflicts. To search for relevant publications on work-family conflicts and health, a systematic prospective literature search was carried out in two international databases (PubMed and Scopus) based on four landmark publications. The search was complemented by a systematic retrospective search in Scopus and hand searches. Inclusion criteria were a focus on work-family conflict, an analysis of health-related outcomes, and the presentation of empirical results. The publications were summarized in narrative style. Results: A total of n = 25 publications on work-family conflict and health in Europe were identified. The data suggests that a variety of instruments is used to measure work-family conflict. Also, work-family conflict and health are linked in Europe, although longitudinal data do not always show robust causal interrelations. Most studies focus on self-rated, mental, and physical health. Results for gender-specific health outcomes remain controversial. Conclusion: The review provides an overview of existing evidence for health-related consequences of work-family conflicts in Europe. The results of the review strengthen the evidence for a link between work-family conflict and health. However, heterogeneous results regarding the direction of work-family conflict and high-risk groups are a matter for discussion. This study investigates whether differences in the results can be accounted for by diverse measurement methods and study populations. Furthermore, different family policies in the European region as well intersectional approaches should be taken into account in further research.