Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
2.
J Hosp Infect ; 121: 75-81, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1851508

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has critically challenged healthcare systems globally. Examining the experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) is important for optimizing ongoing and future pandemic responses. OBJECTIVES: In-depth exploration of Australian HCWs' experiences of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with a focus on reported stressors vis-à-vis protective factors. METHODS: Individual interviews were performed with 63 HCWs in Australia. A range of professional streams and operational staff were included. Thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified stressors centred on paucity of, or changing, evidence, leading to absence of, or mistrust in, guidelines; unprecedented alterations to the autonomy and sense of control of clinicians; and deficiencies in communication and support. Key protective factors included: the development of clear guidance from respected clinical leaders or recognized clinical bodies, interpersonal support, and strong teamwork, leadership, and a sense of organizational preparedness. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the key organizational sources of emotional stress for HCWs within pandemic responses and describes experiences of protective factors. HCWs experiencing unprecedented uncertainty, fear, and rapid change, rely on clear communication, strong leadership, guidelines endorsed by recognized expert groups or individuals, and have increased reliance on interpersonal support. Structured strategies for leadership and communication at team, service group and organizational levels, provision of psychological support, and consideration of the potential negative effects of centralizing control, would assist in ameliorating the extreme pressures of working within a pandemic environment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Personnel , Protective Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Infection Control/organization & administration , Infection Control/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control
3.
Vaccine ; 39(2): 255-262, 2021 01 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-971210

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pandemic planning has historically been oriented to respond to an influenza virus, with vaccination strategy being a key focus. As the current COVID-19 pandemic plays out, the Australian government is closely monitoring progress towards development of SARS-CoV2 vaccines as a definitive intervention. However, as in any pandemic, initial supply will likely be exceeded by demand due to limited manufacturing output. METHODS: We convened community juries in three Australian locations in 2019 to assess public acceptability and perceived legitimacy of influenza pandemic vaccination distribution strategies. Preparatory work included literature reviews on pandemic vaccine allocation strategies and on vaccine allocation ethics, and simulation modelling studies. We assumed vaccine would be provided to predefined priority groups. Jurors were then asked to recommend one of two strategies for distributing remaining early doses of vaccine: directly vaccinate people at higher risk of adverse outcomes from influenza; or indirectly protect the general population by vaccinating primary school students, who are most likely to spread infection. RESULTS: Thirty-four participants of diverse backgrounds and ages were recruited through random digit dialling and topic-blinded social media advertising. Juries heard evidence and arguments supporting different vaccine distribution strategies, and questioned expert presenters. All three community juries supported prioritising school children for influenza vaccination (aiming for indirect protection), one by 10-2 majority and two by consensus. Justifications included that indirect protection benefits more people and is likely to be more publicly acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of an influenza pandemic, informed citizens were not opposed to prioritising groups at higher risks of adverse outcomes, but if resources and epidemiological conditions allow, achieving population benefits should be a strategic priority. These insights may inform future SARS-CoV-2 vaccination strategies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Care Rationing/organization & administration , Immunization Programs/organization & administration , Influenza Vaccines/supply & distribution , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Vaccination/ethics , Adolescent , Adult , Australia/epidemiology , Child , Female , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Influenza Vaccines/economics , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/immunology , Influenza, Human/virology , Male , Middle Aged , Orthomyxoviridae/immunology , Public Health/economics , Public Health/methods , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Vaccination/economics , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL