ABSTRACT
Objectives: The purpose of the study was to illuminate and assess the experiences and feelings of the staff of a center for teaching and learning at one South African university during the early months (April–June 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns when it switched from face-to-face teaching to emergency remote teaching (ERT). It explores the practical, operational, ethical, cultural, and emotional questions that the staff of this center dealt with as they supported the university in ERT provision. Method: This paper draws on in-depth interviews with 23 staff members of the Centre for Innovation in Learning and Teaching (CILT) who revealed not only the logistical, technical, and administrative challenges faced during the ERT rollout period but the efforts they made to ensure that their efforts promoted equity (for students), agility (for the university), and psychological sustainability (for themselves). Findings: Using cultural historical activity theory as a lens to assess CILT staff activities, findings indicate that a number of contradictions and tensions emerged during this period—concerning exacerbated inequities, pedagogical compromises, cultural anxieties, and psychological pressures—that could not be fully resolved but only managed. Implications for Research: CILT staff are interested not only in providing logistical, technical, and practical support to a university but also in dealing effectively with the ethical, cultural, and emotional concerns that arise in times of crisis and transition, such as the current one. Understanding what happened during COVID-19 may offer insights into how other centers for teaching and learning can adjust to what will likely remain an unstable future in higher education. Conclusion: The pandemic ruptured the previously organic change and growth that characterized CILT development, transforming it as the staff responded to this South African university’s need to provide support to academics and students engaging with ERT. © 2022 Laureate Education. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
In its preamble, the Department of Higher Education and Training's (DHET) strategic plan for 2015 to 2020 identified ways to expand access to education and training. However, in South Africa, Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges' enrolment growth is inhibited by inadequate physical infrastructure and a shortage of additional and relevant human resources (DHET, 2018). The draft Open Learning Policy Framework for the Post-School Education and Training (2017) recommends that the principle of flexibility be applied to increase student access and support their success. This exploratory case study focuses on possibilities and limitations of flexible learning provision at a selected TVET college in the Free State province. It adopts Nancy Fraser's (1995, 2005) theory of social justice, which emphasizes parity of participation with respect to economic, cultural and political dimensions, to discuss ways in which flexible learning is socially just. COVID-19 lockdowns severely curtailed this study to virtual interviews with two institutional managers only, as students were not readily available. The transcripts were subsequently coded along Fraser's three dimensions of social justice. The study demonstrates that flexible learning provision responded to the economic dimensions of transport poverty by providing access to curriculum content via online platforms, radio broadcasts and hardcopy materials deposited for collection at selected physical destinations. In relation to cultural parity, it reveals that the college provides a pedagogically responsive intervention programme as a second opportunity for students to succeed. Politically, the study indicates that assessment practices at the college are exclusionary due to national assessment policies that constrain flexibility. This chapter contributes towards understanding the practices and policies that influence flexible learning provision as an aspirational form of open learning as well as the complex ways in which social injustices are entangled in the South African PSET sector.
ABSTRACT
Background: Use of remdesivir in the treatment of dialysis patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been limited due to inconclusive data regarding safety outcomes among patients with severe renal impairment. For this reason, the FDA has not recommended remdesivir use in patients with eGFR < 30 ml/min per 1.73 m2. We sought to evaluate outcomes among dialysis patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir in a real-world setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients on hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis hospitalized with COVID-19 between 5/1/2020 -1/31/2021 within the integrated health system of Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Patients with a COVID-19 International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 code: U07.1 and laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days prior to admission date to two days after admission date were included. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and evidence of acute liver injury defined as AST and/or ALT values >5x upper limit of normal. Results: A total of 486 patients (407 hemodialysis and 79 peritoneal dialysis) met inclusion criteria. Among those, 112 patients (23%) were treated with remdesivir, with median treatment time of 4 days (IQR: 2-5). Mean age was 63.8 years with 63.8% male and 63.0% Hispanic patients. There were 80.2% of patients who received treatment with steroids during hospitalization. Relative risk (RR) for all-cause 30-day mortality was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.52-1.05) in remdesivir treated patients compared to untreated patients. Acute liver injury occurred in 1.8% and 2.4% of remdesivir treated and untreated patients, respectively. ICU admissions occurred in 14.3% of remdesivir treated and 16% of untreated patients. Conclusions: Among dialysis patients hospitalized with COVID-19, treatment with remdesivir was not associated with worse outcomes in terms of liver injury or ICU admission, and demonstrated a trend (26% lower risk) toward decrease in 30-day mortality, though no statistical significance was found due to insufficient power.
ABSTRACT
Objective To translate the English version of fear of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) scale (FCV-19S) into Chinese and assess its reliability and validity. Methods FCV-19S was translated and culture-adapted to form a Chinese version of fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S-C). A total of 334 questionnaires were sent out online, including FCV-19S-C, Chinese version of depression, anxiety and stress scale (DASS-C21), impact of event scale-revised (IES-R) and public stigma scale. The reliability and validity of FCV-19S-C and the influencing factors of COVID-19 fear were analyzed with the survey data. Results FCV-19S-C contained 7 items. One common factor was extracted by exploratory factor analysis, reflecting that all items in the scale belonged to the common factor, which could explain 69.5% of total variation. The load of item factors ranged from 0.780 to 0.873, showing good construct validity. The total score of FCV-19S-C was positively correlated with the total scores of DASS-C21 and IES-R (r＝0.403 and 0.471, both P＜0.01), indicating that the scale had good concurrent validity. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of FCV-19S-C was 0.924, showing good reliability. Linear regression analysis showed that the influences of COVID-19 on the psychological level and family income could predict the total score of FCV-19S-C (β＝0.62 and 0.20, both P＜0.01). The total score of FCV-19S-C could predict the total score of the public stigma scale (β＝0.37, P＜0.01). Conclusion FCV-19S-C has good reliability and validity, and can be used as a tool to understand the public fear of COVID-19 in China. The fear of COVID-19 is related to the loss of family income and the public stigma of COVID-19 patients.
ABSTRACT
Epidemic infectious diseases have become a major threat to public health safety. This paper reviews the previous researches and analyzes the psychological impact of infectious disease outbreak on medical staff, patients and the public, exploring the risk and protective factors of adverse psychological reactions, so as to provide references for future research and counseling after coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. It is suggested that multi-center and large-scale follow-up investigation is needed, and more attention needs to be paid on influences of stigma and public opinion on internet and the change of positive psychological quality after the epidemic outbreak. Moreover, the research results of risk and protective factors should be fully used in psychological intervention. © 2020 Second Military Medical University Press. All rights reserved.