Prof. Dr. rer. medic. Dawid Pieper has been FGW professor for health services and health system research at the Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane (MHB) since September 1st, 2021.
He heads the Center for Health Services Research (ZVF-BB) based in Rüdersdorf. In addition, he is head of the Institute for Health Services and Health Systems Research (IVGF), which is located at the Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg (FGW) and is responsible for the Master’s program in Health Services Research (M.Sc.).
The professorship is dedicated in particular to regional services research. When determining the need for care, analyses of the spatial layout of the planning regions as well as the consideration of changes in need and range of services are of particular importance.
With the involvement of patients and stakeholders, knowledge translation supports the implementation in rural areas. In this way, Brandenburg would like to develop into a model region for comparable regions in Germany and Europe.
Location: Immanuel Klinik Rüdersdorf, Seebad 82/83, 15562 Rüdersdorf, Polyclinic, Level 0, Office F.007
Research Focus
The IVGF oversees the Master’s program in Health Services Research (M.Sc.), which was launched for the first time in the winter semester of 2022/2023.
In addition, the IVGF plays a leading role in continuing education events offered through the JBI Center of Evidence-Based Practice Germany.
We are also always interested in applications for internships and/or thesis projects. If permitted by your university, we are happy to provide full supervision for your thesis.
If you are interested in pursuing a Ph.D. or a postdoctoral qualification, please contact Prof. Dr. Dawid Pieper directly.
National
SHARE TO CARE. Patientenzentrierte Versorgung GmbH,
Dr. Fritz Scheibler
Universität Witten/Herdecke,
Institut für Forschung in der Operativen Medizin,
Prof. Dr. Rolf Lefering;
Lehrstuhl für Klinische Pharmakologie,
Prof. Dr. Petra Thürmann
Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg
Abteilung Ambulante Versorgung und Pharmakoepidemiologie
Prof. Dr. Falk Hoffmann
International
Catholic University of Croatia,
Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care,
Prof. Dr. Livia Puljak
Ostschweizer Fachhochschule,
Institut für Gesundheitswissenschaften,
Prof. Dr. Julian Hirt
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences in Bergen,
Centre for Evidence-Based Practice,
Prof. Dr. Hans Lund
Selection
Fischer L, Schewe LV, Scheibler F, Wollny R, Schaefer C, Karge T, Langer T, Berghold J, Florez ID, Hutchinson A, Li S, Maes-Carballo M, Munn Z, Perestelo-Perez L, Puljak L, Stiggelbout A, Pieper D. Scoping review indicates heterogeneous methods for developing and integrating patient decision aids in the context of clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 May;181:111708. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111708. Epub 2025 Feb 1. PMID: 39900255.
Fischer L, Wollny R, Schewe LV, Scheibler F, Karge T, Langer T, Schaefer C, Florez ID, Hutchinson A, Li S, Maes-Carballo M, Munn Z, Perestelo-Perez L, Puljak L, Stiggelbout A, Pieper D. Integrating Shared Decision Making and Decision Support Tools into Clinical Practice Guidelines: What Does It Take? A Qualitative Study. Med Decis Making. 2026 Jan;46(1):60-75. doi: 10.1177/0272989X251368866. Epub 2025 Sep 15. PMID: 40955090.
Kugler CM, Koller D, Muehlensiepen F, Pachanov A, Kuehne A, Pieper D (2024). Utilization of health-related data in the regional context for health service planning in the Federal State of Brandenburg, Germany—a qualitative study. Research in Health Services & Regions 3:14. DOI: 10.1007/s43999-024-00050-0
Shehu E, Pieper D, Albrecht HC, Gretschel S, Krüger CM, Leggio F, Mantke R, Rückbeil O, Paasch C, Trawa M, Klugarová J, Peričić TP, Bała MM, Prill R, Kugler CM (2025). Increasing the rates of pre-operative stoma site marking in patients with intestinal ostomy (INSTOSI): a best practice implementation project. JBI Evid Implement. DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000503
Orduhan, C., Bieler, D., Goossen, K. et al. Umsetzung von Leitlinienempfehlungen in der Polytrauma‑/Schwerverletztenbehandlung – Ergebnisse einer Onlinebefragung zu Leitlinienadhärenz und bestehenden Barrieren. Notfall Rettungsmed (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-026-01728-3
Pfisterer-Heise S, Orduhan C, Goossen K, Breuing J, Hellbrecht I, von Peter S, et al. Patient involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines in Germany—A meta-research study. Clin Pub Health Guidelines. 2025;2:e70016. https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70016
Pfisterer-Heise S, Scharfe J, Pachanov A, Kugler CM, Pieper D. Patient representatives‘ perspectives on the centralisation of inpatient healthcare services – A focus group study in Germany. Health Policy. 2026 May;167:105582. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2026.105582. Epub 2026 Feb 14. PMID: 41722496.
Pfisterer-Heise S, Scharfe J, Kugler CM, Shehu E, Wolf T, Mathes T, Pieper D. Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for studies on centralisation of healthcare services. BMJ Open. 2023 Mar 21;13(3):e068138. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068138. PMID: 36944460; PMCID: PMC10032414.
Pachanov A, Münte C, Hirt J, Pieper D. Development and validation of a geographic search filter for MEDLINE (PubMed) to identify studies about Germany. Res Synth Methods. 2024 Nov;15(6):1147-1160. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1763. Epub 2024 Oct 15. PMID: 39403860.
Pachanov A, Muente C, Hirt J, Pieper D. Translation and validation of a geographic search filter to identify studies about Germany in Embase (Ovid) and MEDLINE(R) ALL (Ovid). Res Synth Methods. 2025 Jul;16(4):688-700. doi: 10.1017/rsm.2025.10016. Epub 2025 Jun 9. PMID: 41626919; PMCID: PMC12527497.
Pieper D, Rombey T. Where to prospectively register a systematic review. Syst Rev 11, 8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01877-1.
Burkamp JR, Bühn S, Schnitzbauer A, Pieper D. Preference between medical outcomes and travel times: an analysis of liver transplantation. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021 Jul 29. doi: 10.1007/s00423-021-02258-x. Online ahead of print.
You can find a complete publication list under https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Pieper+Dawid%5Bau%5D&sort=date&size=20
Evidence of a link between the volume of services provided by a hospital and the quality of outcomes for certain clinical interventions has led to regulations in several health systems that aim to centralize these interventions. The authors of primary studies may have an interest in influencing health policy decisions by preferentially publishing research that favors the service volume of the hospital to which they belong (e.g., managers of high-volume hospitals may support centralization, while managers of low-volume hospitals may not). This can be seen as a form of institutional conflict of interest. The aim of this study is to investigate the presence of institutional conflicts of interest in volume-outcome studies. Methods: We will use studies included in a systematic review of the relationship between hospital volume and outcome in total knee arthroplasty. We will contact the authors of the studies to obtain their institutional volume. We will conduct two analyses comparing the authors’ conclusions for the categories 1) high vs. medium or low hospital volume and 2) hospital vs. non-hospital authors. We will also ask the authors by email for their views on institutional conflicts of interest in the area of volume-outcome studies.
Dr. Charlotte Kugler, Dr. Alexander Haarmann, Dr. Hengameh Goodarzi, Alexander Pachanov in cooperation with the Institut für Forschung in der Operativen Medizin (Universität Witten/Herdecke) and the American University of Beirut
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are systematically developed statements designed to assist healthcare professionals and patients with medical decision-making. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) as well as the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) recommend incorporating patients’ values and preferences into the development of CPGs. Internationally, involving those affected is recognized as a key aspect of trustworthy and high-quality CPGs.
The aim of the first study was to describe current practices regarding patient involvement in CPG development from the patient’s perspective. To this end, a qualitative interview study was conducted with patient representatives who had previously participated at least once in the development of a German evidence- and consensus-based CPG (S3-level CPG), which represents the highest level within the German CPG classification system. The research questions are: (1) What current practices of patient involvement in CPG development are in Germany, i.e., at what stage and with which method patients and their representatives were involved in the CPG development process. (2) What roles and responsibilities patient representatives had during the process, specifically compared to other members of the guideline development group. (3) How patient representatives perceived the CPG development process, specifically with respect to their involvement. (4) What challenges patient representatives see for the future of PI in CPG development.
A preprint can be found under: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6168209
A second study on patient involvement in the development of CPGs is being conducted in collaboration with the Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM) at Witten/Herdecke University. In this study, a scoping review will be conducted. The setting will be CPGs published during the past six years and developed in participating countries (Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Germany, Scotland) by organisations that regularly involve consumers in guideline development. In particular, the following research questions will be addressed: (1) Which approaches have been used for consumer involvement in CPG (‘how’)? (2) Which stages of the guideline process did consumers contribute to (‘when’)? (3) How was consumer involvement organised (e.g., recruitment, training, communication, evaluation)?
The study protocol can be found under: https://osf.io/4tz39/overview
Stefanie Pfisterer-Heise, Clara Orduhan
The JBI Brighter Futures Grant Program supports international collaborative projects aimed at advancing evidence-based healthcare and strengthening capacity in evidence synthesis, implementation, and knowledge translation. This project is funded through the program and is being conducted in close collaboration among several JBI centres, including teams from Germany, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Ghana, Austria, and the United States.
As part of this project, CONSENSYS is being applied and refined as a tool for integrating contextual dimensions into evidence syntheses (ES). The aim is to evaluate the tool’s applicability and added value in systematic reviews (SRs) and other types of ES and to further optimize its use, if needed.
The project follows a multi-stage, iterative approach. First, the participating teams are trained in the use of CONSENSYS and apply the tool to existing SRs as practical examples. CONSENSYS is then used in a series of ongoing and newly initiated ES to develop context-sensitive implications for practice and policy. In addition, plain-language summaries of the findings are developed and made available in several languages. Finally, focus group discussions with the participating researchers will be conducted to identify the strengths, challenges, and potential areas for further development of CONSENSYS. The project findings will also be disseminated and discussed through JBI gLOCAL Solution Room events, providing opportunities to engage with researchers and other interest-holders and to explore the relevance of the findings across different contexts.
The project contributes to strengthening the contextualization of ES and improving the development of context-specific recommendations relevant to practice and policy.
Funding: JBI, University of Adelaide, Australia
Duration: 2025–2027
Alexander Pachanov
Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements designed to assist healthcare professionals with medical decision-making. However, they should also take into account the preferences and circumstances of patients facing a health decision.
Shared decision-making (SDM) is a well-established approach that encourages collaboration between patients and healthcare professionals to make well-informed decisions about health-related issues. Key elements of SDM include transparently presenting possible treatment options and helping patients reflect on and incorporate their individual values and preferences into the decision. Decision aids can be used to support this process. However, initial studies show that current guidelines are only of limited use in helping healthcare professionals to implement SDM.
The aim of this project is to develop a tool that can be used to systematically identify and prioritize guideline recommendations for which SDM is most relevant. Such a tool would, for the first time, provide German and international guideline authors with structured guidance to specifically incorporate SDM into the guideline development process. It could also promote the development and provision of decision aids, thereby better supporting SDM between patients and healthcare professionals.
Further information is available at: https://www.researchprotocols.org/2024/1/e57611
The project is funded by the German Innovation Fund of the Joint Federal Committee (G-BA) (FKZ: 01VSF23022).
Lena Fischer, Clara Orduhan
Over 700,000 people in Germany currently live in nursing homes – and the trend is rising. Until now, relatively few official quality indicators were available. In the project “Quality measurement in care with routine data (QMPR)”, 12 additional quality indicators were identified using routine data, which are capable of revealing potentially problematic areas.
The aim of the current QCare Transfer project is to pilot the use of these new indicators and to examine how they can best be taken up by healthcare professionals in the long term. To this end, around 40 participating nursing homes in Bavaria will be randomized into two groups: Group 1 will receive a comparison of their own results with other nursing homes, Group 2 will receive additional support from professional quality circles. The control group receives standard information in line with the legal standard. The study is accompanied by comprehensive research, will last three and a half years and is financed by the innovation fund of the Federal Joint Committee. In addition to the MHB, the lead partner is the WIdO, aQua and AOK Bayern.
Dr. Alexander Haarmann, Alexander Pachanov
Clinical guidelines are often not fully implemented in practice. One reason for this is that there are too many differences between the guideline recommendations and clinical practice under everyday conditions. Specifically, this can be for many reasons: patients, staff, structure, availability of resources or cultural or ethical aspects. To take this into account, it is possible to adapt national guidelines for a local context (e.g. a hospital). This can be beneficial for implementation without jeopardizing the validity of the guideline. This process is also known as guideline adaptation. Our aim is to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have investigated the effects of locally adapted guidelines. For this purpose, we conduct a scoping review following the JBI methodology. The protocol can be found in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/3ed2w).
Prof. Dr. Dawid Pieper
Systematic Reviews (SRs) sind wichtige Instrumente der evidence-based Research, die bestehende Evidenz synthetisieren, Lücken aufzeigen und unnötige Duplikationen vermeiden. Dadurch können sie die Planung von Studien unterstützen und zu besseren Ergebnissen beitragen. In einigen Fällen integrieren Autoren randomisierter kontrollierter Studien (RCTs) eine systematische Übersicht (SR) oder Meta-Analyse (MA) direkt in denselben Artikel, um die neuen Ergebnisse einzubetten, sei es als Update oder als Neuerstellung. Dieser Ansatz wird seit 2005 von The Lancet gefördert, doch die methodischen und berichtenden Implikationen bleiben unklar. Diese Meta-Research-Studie zielt darauf ab, die Merkmale solcher hybriden Publikationen von 2016 bis 2025 zu beschreiben, einschließlich ihrer Transparenz. Methodisch erfolgt eine Suche in PubMed und Embase mit spezifischen Suchstrings für RCTs mit SR/MA.
Dr. Hengameh Goodarzi, Alexander Pachanov, Dr. Charlotte Kugler
Clinical guidelines contain recommendations intended to assist healthcare professionals with the treatment of patients. In practice, however, these recommendations are not always fully implemented. Successful dissemination strategies are needed to increase guideline adherence. As part of the ongoing update of the German evidence- and consensus-based guideline for patients with multiple and/or severe injuries, an online survey was conducted. This survey examined the assessment of emergency physicians and paramedics regarding the adherence to recommendations of the German clinical guideline for patients with multiple and/or severe injuriesas well as the relevance of barriers. This survey’s findings suggest the increased use of visual presentation methods to improve the dissemination of the guideline and its content.
Therefore,visual summaries are being successively created for each topic of the guideline. These are currently tested, refined, and ultimately finalized through continuous discussions with health care professionals. A follow-up survey of guideline users (health care professionals working in emergency care in Germany) will be conducted to evaluate and refine the visual summaries, addressing acceptance, appropriateness, comprehensibility, and successful dissemination of the first published summaries. The first pilot visual summaries have been developed, iteratively improved based on discussion rounds with health care professionals, and published online. In total, they represent 21 guideline recommendations. Visual symbols and different colors are used to provide visual support. Preliminary results show that visual summaries of recommendations are widely accepted by guideline users. They are considered very useful as they are easy to understand and, due to their brevity, can be applied even under limited time resources..
Clara Orduhan
Systematic Reviews bring together the results of all studies on a particular topic, they are “studies of studies” and provide an overview of the current state of knowledge. More and more, patients or citizens are being involved in research – also in systematic reviews. Some systematic reviews analyze health measures that target the population level, such as a sugar tax. Therefore, citizens should be involved to understand the important considerations of citizens when they discuss whether the results justify implementation. In this way, the perspective of researchers is complemented by that of laypeople. However, citizens must first understand the results well. In the project, the question will be answered, which communication format is best suited to involve citizens in the interpretation of the results of systematic reviews on the population level. It is divided into four phases: preparation, survey, evaluation and conclusion. In the preparation phase, a team of researchers and citizens, who will work as co-researchers, is formed. Together, they select two health measures on the population level. Subsequently, three formats are developed that summarize the results of systematic reviews on these topics: a lay-friendly summary, a fact box and a simulation format. In an online survey, these formats are tested with a group of around 850 people who reflect the population in Germany in terms of gender, age and education. They indicate how well they understand the formats. In the evaluation, the best-rated format is applied in four discussion rounds with citizens to test how participation works in practice. Two groups take place online and two on-site. The participants discuss whether the measures would be sensible in Germany. Finally, there is an evaluation of the entire study, and researchers and co-researchers evaluate the process. The project runs for two years.
The Project is supported by Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (project number 575781596).
Dr. Charlotte Kugler, Stefanie Pfisterer-Heise, gemeinsam mit Institut für Biometrie (MHB) und Charité
Modern medicine often provides more treatment than is clinically necessary – particularly in oncology and cardiology. Standard therapies aim for maximum cure, but often exceed the necessary level of treatment for low-risk patients. This leads to unnecessary side effects, a reduced quality of life and higher costs. De-escalation (also known as ‘appropriate care’ or ‘high-value care’) asks the question: ‘When is less more in medicine?’ De-escalation can denote an improvement, for example through less invasive procedures or the avoidance of surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, drug-based or device-based therapies, right through to ‘watch and wait’ strategies. The project aims to develop strategies for oncology and cardiology. It is divided into five work packages, of which the IVGF is responsible for two:
The project is funded by the MHB’s internal research funding programme and is led by Prof. Dr Michael Hauptmann. https://www.mhb-fontane.de/de/deeskalation
Dr. Charlotte Kugler, Stefanie Pfisterer-Heise
Gender Equity in Healthcare Research Why do we need gender equity in all areas of life, including healthcare research? Ensuring gender equality is a matter of justice and human rights. Visibility has become an essential component of scientific practice. In many disciplines, it has been shown that systematic analyses of gender relations promote visibility and participation of women. However, in the field of healthcare research in Germany, such an assessment is still lacking. The goal is to conduct a first analysis to spark a debate on gender equity in healthcare research. We will analyze the presidents of the German Congress for Healthcare Research, the board of the German Network for Healthcare Research e.V., and the title interviews of the Monitor for Healthcare Research by Social Gender (male/female/non-binary, based on names, photos, and address) by gender.
Dr. Charlotte Kugler, Stefanie Pfisterer-Heise, in cooperation with Charité
Analysis of the Minimum Volume of Pancreatic Surgery In the context of the relationship between volume and quality of care, minimum volume regulations (MVR) have been introduced in Germany since 2004. The minimum volume (MV) for complex pancreatic surgeries was increased, as decided in 2021, from 15 to 20 cases per location and year by 2025. This project investigates the following research questions: What were the effects of the changes in the minimum volume for pancreatic surgery (introduction of the predictive procedure, increase in minimum volume) on the number of cases and locations for pancreatic operations? What are the explanations for the increase in the number of cases? To answer these questions, the DRG data set will be analyzed.
Dr. Charlotte Kugler, Alexander Pachanov, in collaboration with the University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel, the University Hospital Ruppin-Brandenburg, and the Technical University of Berlin.
As people get older, the average number of chronic conditions they have tends to increase. Consequently, multimorbidity is on the rise overall and is estimated to affect around 60 per cent of people aged 65–69. Studies focusing on older patients with multimorbidity are usually based on small cohorts and aim to estimate the prevalence of multimorbidity. The challenges faced by this patient group in accessing care are rarely considered, even though they are a daily occurrence in clinical practice – particularly across different sectors. The project “Multimorbidity Clusters in Older People” investigates the following research questions: What combinations of chronic conditions are found in older patients (aged 65 and over)? (Analysis of routine data based on physicians’ billing data of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds in Germany, GKV). What are the challenges and problems involved in caring for older patients with multiple health conditions? What role do clinical practice guidelines currently play in the care of this patient group in Germany, and what role should they ideally play? (Focus group study involving healthcare providers and researchers). To what extent do current clinical practice guidelines in Germany take into account the care of older patients with multiple co-morbidities? (Meta-research study)
The project is funded by the Centre for Ageing Research (ZAF-BB) at Brandenburg Medical School.
Stefanie Pfisterer-Heise, Lena Fischer, Alexander Pachanov and Dr Alexander Haarmann, in collaboration with the Institute of Biostatistics and Register Research at Brandenburg Medical School, the Institute of General Medicine at Brandenburg Medical School and the Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care in Germany.
