Biopolymers - facts and statistics

The IfBB – Institute for Bioplastics and Biocomposites is a research institute within the Hochschule Hannover, University of Applied Sciences and Arts, which was established in 2011 to respond to the growing need for expert knowledge in the area of bioplastics. With its practice-oriented research and its collaboration with industrial partners, the IfBB is able to shore up the market for bioplastics and, in addition, foster unbiased public awareness and understanding of the topic. As an independent research-led expert institution for bioplastics, the IfBB is willing to share its expertise, research findings and data with any interested party via the Internet, online and offline publications or at fairs and conferences. In carrying on these efforts, substantial information regarding market trends, processes and resource needs for bioplastics is being presented here in a concise format, in addition to the more detailed and comprehensive publication and “Engineering Biopolymers”1. One of our main concerns is to furnish a more rational basis for discussing bioplastics and use fact-based arguments in the public discourse. Furthermore, “Biopolymers – facts and statistics” aims to provide specific, qualified answers easily and quickly for decision-makers in particular from public administration and the industrial sector. Therefore, this publication is made up like a set of rules and standards and largely foregoes textual detail. It offers extensive market-relevant and technical facts presented in graphs and charts, which means that the information is much easier to grasp. The reader can expect comparative market figures for various materials, regions, applications, process routes, agricultural land use or resource consumption, production capacities, geographic distribution, etc.

Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, physician-rating websites have been gaining attention in scientific literature and in the media. However, little knowledge is available about the awareness and the impact of using such sites on health care professionals. It also remains unclear what key predictors are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the current level of awareness and use of physician-rating websites in Germany and to determine their impact on physician choice making and the key predictors which are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites. METHODS: This study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. An online panel was consulted in January 2013. A questionnaire was developed containing 28 questions; a pretest was carried out to assess the comprehension of the questionnaire. Several sociodemographic (eg, age, gender, health insurance status, Internet use) and 2 health-related independent variables (ie, health status and health care utilization) were included. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and t tests. Binary multivariate logistic regression models were performed for elaborating the characteristics of physician-rating website users. Results from the logistic regression are presented for both the observed and weighted sample. RESULTS: In total, 1505 respondents (mean age 43.73 years, SD 14.39; 857/1505, 57.25% female) completed our survey. Of all respondents, 32.09% (483/1505) heard of physician-rating websites and 25.32% (381/1505) already had used a website when searching for a physician. Furthermore, 11.03% (166/1505) had already posted a rating on a physician-rating website. Approximately 65.35% (249/381) consulted a particular physician based on the ratings shown on the websites; in contrast, 52.23% (199/381) had not consulted a particular physician because of the publicly reported ratings. Significantly higher likelihoods for being aware of the websites could be demonstrated for female participants (P<.001), those who were widowed (P=.01), covered by statutory health insurance (P=.02), and with higher health care utilization (P<.001). Health care utilization was significantly associated with all dependent variables in our multivariate logistic regression models (P<.001). Furthermore, significantly higher scores could be shown for health insurance status in the unweighted and Internet use in the weighted models. CONCLUSIONS: Neither health policy makers nor physicians should underestimate the influence of physician-rating websites. They already play an important role in providing information to help patients decide on an appropriate physician. Assuming there will be a rising level of public awareness, the influence of their use will increase well into the future. Future studies should assess the impact of physician-rating websites under experimental conditions and investigate whether physician-rating websites have the potential to reflect the quality of care offered by health care providers.