Suchergebnisse

AIM: Reflect upon the visibility of nursing‐led research during the COVID‐19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: The emerging SARS‐CoV‐2 infection has galvanized collaborative and multidisciplinary efforts in clinical and research practice worldwide. The scarce evidence‐base to manage patients with COVID‐19 has included limited nurse‐led research. INTRODUCTION: Clinical research nurses have greatly contributed to the delivery of COVID‐19 research, yet the number of COVID‐19 nursing‐led research papers appears to be limited, with even fewer nurse‐led research projects funded. METHODS: Authors' views and PubMed search on 'COVID‐19 and nursing'. FINDINGS: There is a dearth of nursing‐led research. Most papers describe the nursing contribution to COVID‐19 care, changes in nursing working arrangements and emotional burden. There are opportunities to explore the consequences to vulnerable population groups of public health measures implemented to stop the progress of the COVID‐19 pandemic. DISCUSSION: Workforce gaps, limited integration in research structures and clinical redeployment may have hampered nurse‐led research. COVID‐19 may exacerbate staffing deficits by disrupting the education pipeline, obstructing the transition from clinical to academic practice, particularly in areas where clinical academic roles are yet to emerge. CONCLUSION: The absence of nurse‐led research in COVID‐19 can be explained by chronic, underlying factors and the features of the pandemic response. Emerging models of care, effective staffing and inequalities related to COVID‐19 appear obvious research areas. Nursing leadership needs to strengthen its political voice and lobbying skills to secure nurse‐led research funding. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING POLICY: Embracing international nursing research, strengthening collaborations and lobbying policymakers for investment in nurse‐sensitive research would enhance the response to COVID‐19.

Studies have identified a greater reluctance for members of the Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities to be vaccinated against COVID-19 despite a higher probability of greater harm from COVID-19. We conducted an anonymised questionnaire-based study of students (recruiting primarily before first reports of embolic events) at two London universities to identify whether economic or educational levels were primarily responsible for this reluctance: a postgraduate core group (PGCC) n = 860, and a pilot study of undergraduate medical and nursing students (n = 103). Asian and Black students were 2.0 and 3.2 times (PGCC) less likely to accept the COVID vaccine than White British students. Similar findings were noted in the pilot study students. As the students were studying for Master's or PhD degrees and voluntarily paying high fees, educational and economic reasons were unlikely to be the underlying cause, and wider cultural reservations were more likely. Politicians exerted a strong negative influence, suggesting that campaigns should omit politicians.

Studies have identified a greater reluctance for members of the Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities to be vaccinated against COVID-19 despite a higher probability of greater harm from COVID-19. We conducted an anonymised questionnaire-based study of students (recruiting primarily before first reports of embolic events) at two London universities to identify whether economic or educational levels were primarily responsible for this reluctance: a postgraduate core group (PGCC) n = 860, and a pilot study of undergraduate medical and nursing students (n = 103). Asian and Black students were 2.0 and 3.2 times (PGCC) less likely to accept the COVID vaccine than White British students. Similar findings were noted in the pilot study students. As the students were studying for Master's or PhD degrees and voluntarily paying high fees, educational and economic reasons were unlikely to be the underlying cause, and wider cultural reservations were more likely. Politicians exerted a strong negative influence, suggesting that campaigns should omit politicians.

Background: Strategic planning is critical for successful pandemic management. This study aimed to identify and review the scope and analytic depth of situation analyses conducted to understand their utility, and capture the documented macro-level factors impacting4pandemic management. Methods: To synthesise this disparate body of literature, we adopted a two-step search and 6review process. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify all studies since 2000, that have 1) employed a situation analysis;and2) examined contextual factors influencing pandemic management. The included studies are analysed using a seven-domain systems approach rom the discipline of strategic management. Findings: Nineteen studies were included in the final review ranging from single country (6) to regional, multi-country studies (13). Fourteen studies had a single disease focus, with 5 studies evaluating responses to one or more of COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS),Influenza A (H1N1),Ebola virus disease, and Zika virus disease pandemics. Six studies examined a single domain from political, economic, sociological, technological, ecological or wider industry(PESTELI), 5 studies examined two to four domains, and8studies examined five or more domains. Methods employed were predominantly literature reviews. The recommendations focus predominantly on addressing inhibitors in the sociological and technological domains with few recommendations articulated in the political domain. Overall, the legislative domain is least represented. Conclusions: Ex-post analysis using the seven-domain strategic management framework provides further opportunities for a planned systematic response to pandemics which remains critical as the current COVID-19 pandemic evolves.

Background Variation in the approaches taken to contain the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at country level has been shaped by economic and political considerations, technical capacity, and assumptions about public behaviours. To address the limited application of learning from previous pandemics, this study aimed to analyse perceived facilitators and inhibitors during the pandemic and to inform the development of an assessment tool for pandemic response planning. Methods A cross-sectional electronic survey of health and non-healthcare professionals (5 May - 5 June 2020) in six languages, with respondents recruited via email, social media and website posting. Participants were asked to score inhibitors (-10 to 0) or facilitators (0 to +10) impacting country response to COVID-19 from the following domains – Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Ecological, Legislative, and wider Industry (the PESTELI framework). Participants were then asked to explain their responses using free text. Descriptive and thematic analysis was followed by triangulation with the literature and expert validation to develop the assessment tool, which was then compared with four existing pandemic planning frameworks. Results 928 respondents from 66 countries (57% healthcare professionals) participated. Political and economic influences were consistently perceived as powerful negative forces and technology as a facilitator across high- and low-income countries. The 103-item tool developed for guiding rapid situational assessment for pandemic planning is comprehensive when compared to existing tools and highlights the interconnectedness of the 7 domains. Conclusions The tool developed and proposed addresses the problems associated with decision making in disciplinary silos and offers a means to refine future use of epidemic modelling.