Biomedical subjects

Norbert Donner-Banzhoff

Publications and source records attributed to Norbert Donner-Banzhoff.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Feedback for general practice trainers: developing and testing a standardised instrument using the importance-quality-score method.

INTRODUCTION: Although general practice vocational training has been mandatory in Germany since 1993, a service philosophy still prevails. To help general practice trainers develop their identity and skills as trainers we developed and tested a standardised instrument. The questionnaire is to be filled in by registrars after their attachment to a given practice and handed to the trainer as personal feedback on the training provided. METHODS: Items were collected by asking experts in the field to name content that should be covered. The resulting items were reduced using the importance-quality method derived from health-related quality of life research. Reliability was tested by registrars rating their training twice 3 weeks apart. They also provided free text comments that were coded and analysed to establish criterion validity. RESULTS: A total of 121 items were collected. Eighty registrars provided importance and quality ratings to reduce these to 43 items. Test-re-test reliability and criterion validity were also established. CONCLUSION: The importance-quality method proved to be useful for item reduction according to the objective of the questionnaire. Instruments evaluating the quality of vocational training must be context-sensitive.

Education, Medical, Continuing↗

PubMed2003

[How many standards can variety take?].

The recently published "Curriculum Evidence-based Medicine" of the German Network Evidence-based Medicine and the German Agency for Quality in Medicine has been criticised for shortcomings in teaching methods and the teaching process. In this article, authors of the curriculum provide a replique to the criticisms.

Curriculum↗

PubMed2003

[A new measure. New studies require new criteria for critical appraisal].

Over the last ten years the quality of published clinical trials has improved considerably. Randomised controlled design, concealed allocation, blinding, clinically relevant outcomes, large sample sizes and almost complete follow-up are standard features of most trials. As a result, standard evidence-based medicine criteria can no longer be used to separate the "wheat from the chaff". Here, we discuss recent studies which reveal only marginal superiority of new treatments over well-established and effective therapies. Nowadays, readers of reports should be particularly aware of the definition of control therapies, of clinical relevance when results are statistically significant, of the external validity and whether a trial serves a pragmatic or explanatory purpose.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2003

[Evidence-based medicine in 2025--what will remain?].

The reader is invited to attend a symposium on the long-term impact of Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) held in 2025. When EBM emerged for the first time, there had been great expectations, not all of which were fulfilled. Against the background of many vested interests evidence from clinical studies was not always welcome. Nor had EBM been able to abolish controversy and conflict within the health care system. But EBM had been associated with a substantial change of clinical mentality with practitioners becoming more cooperative, more self-critical and open for a scientific basis of their work. Although the reasoning of doctors has remained within a narrative framework, EBM has provided them with a critical tool for diagnosis, causal relations and intervention.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗