OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to explore the subjective views of general practitioners on the applicability of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Screening Scale for DSM-5 (ASRS-5) as a screening tool for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults in general practice.
METHODS: Eleven general practitioners, who had participated in the validation study of the German version of the ASRS-5, were interviewed. For this purpose, a semi-structured interview guide was designed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz.
RESULTS: The ASRS-5 seems to work well in general medical practice. But there is evidence for a lack of knowledge about ADHD in adults among general practitioners and a demand for further training in this area. Moreover, insufficient possibilities for subsequent treatment after a positive ADHD screening were claimed.
CONCLUSIONS: In general medicine, the introduction of a screening using ASRS-5 in cases of clinical suspicion could be the first step towards improving the management of adult patients with ADHD.
CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing the management of adults with ADHD requires additional information and training initiatives to support early diagnosis especially in the primary care setting, and to reveal treatment options and care concepts for adults with ADHD.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based clinical pathways can be a useful tool for guideline implementation. However, there seem to be barriers to the use of clinical pathways. The aim of the present questionnaire survey was to assess the perceived usability of the clinical pathway \"Overweight/obesity in children and adolescents at primary care level\" and to identify factors promoting and hindering the use of the clinical pathway.
METHODS: In January 2020, an online questionnaire survey was sent out to 3,916 general practitioners and 470 pediatricians in Austria. The data collected were analysed descriptively.
RESULTS: A total of 148 people took part in the questionnaire survey (response rate 3.7 %). The majority of respondents indicated that they, in general, perceive evidence-based clinical pathways as helpful (90 %) and also make use of them (57 %). Few respondents (9 %) felt well-informed about new clinical pathways developed in Austria. Most of the respondents considered the clinical pathway \"Overweight/obesity in children and adolescents at primary care level\" as a useful support (60 %), as a reference work (72 %) or as a facilitator for justifying their approach to their patients (68 %). However, a large proportion of the respondents stated that the clinical pathway is not easily applicable in everyday practice. The three most frequently cited barriers to using the clinical pathway were lack of time resources, lack of structures and lack of financial incentives. Other display and access options (e. g., individualisation, integration into practice software) were most frequently cited as factors that might promote the use of the pathway.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of the respondents had positive expectations regarding the use of the clinical pathway \"Overweight/obesity in children and adolescents at primary care level\", many of them still perceived its usability in everyday clinical practice as difficult. The necessary next steps to improve the use of evidence-based clinical pathways seem to be: an economic and practicable design, easy accessibility of clinical pathways and the creation of framework conditions that facilitate their use in everyday practice.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process.
METHODS: Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists. This is a German translation of the original paper published in English.
RESULTS: We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings.
CONCLUSIONS: The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society.

Practitioners and providers who want to apply evidence from studies will usually face the following two questions: 1) \'Are the study results valid?\', and 2) \'Will these results be the same in my setting?\' Major progress has been achieved in regard to the first question. An array of tools to assess the validity has been developed. Much less effort, though, has been put into developing and applying methods to assess the transferability of evidence from one setting to another. Existing concepts to assess transferability aim at identifying similarities and differences between the study context and the context in which the study findings are supposed to be applied. In a second step, the impact of the differences on the outcomes are estimated. Context can be distinguished into \'implementation\' (how is an intervention applied?), \'target group\' (who will receive the intervention?), and \'setting.\' In this article selected tools to identify context variables and to assess transferability are presented.