Managing Human Subjects Research During a Global Pandemic at an Academic Center: Lessons Learned From COVID-19.

By March 2020, New York City became the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Consequently, Columbia University, with its large portfolio of human subjects research, had to address the challenges of protecting thousands of research participants and research staff from potential exposure to COVID-19 while facilitating essential biomedical research, especially pandemic-related studies. The authors describe, from the perspective of Columbia's research administration leadership, how the University and its primary teaching hospital ramped down-and later ramped up-human subjects research and reflect on lessons learned. As the pandemic unfolded, only studies offering the prospect of direct benefit to subjects were permitted to continue with in-person contact. New in-person participant enrollment ceased, except for COVID-19 prevention or treatment studies. Centralized, frequently updated communication about policies and procedures was disseminated to the Columbia research community. Procedural efficiencies were rapidly developed and implemented for review and oversight of human subjects research and contractual agreements for clinical trials. More frequent institutional review board meetings and 24-hour support markedly reduced turnaround time for COVID-19 studies, without delaying approvals of non-COVID-19 research. Research administration worked closely with relevant principal federal agencies, whose regulatory flexibility facilitated the efficient implementation of COVID-19-related research. Overall, the ramp-down and ramp-up of the majority of human subjects research, with specified priorities and accelerated processes, worked well. Adjustments were made to handle the increase in administrative tasks, the need to respond rapidly to added oversight responsibilities, and the management of the many new COVID-19-related research protocols. Timely, centralized communication, support for staff needs, prioritization, and collaboration were critical to successful research oversight at a large-scale academic setting in the midst of a pandemic. These perspectives may be useful to academic research centers addressing the current and future pandemics.

Qualitative experiences of primary health care and social care professionals with refugee-like migrants and former quota refugees in New Zealand.

Former quota refugees are known to have higher health and social care needs than the general population in resettlement countries. However, migrants with a refugee-like background (refugee-like migrants) in New Zealand are not currently offered systematic government-sponsored induction or health services. This study explored the experiences of New Zealand health and social care providers in general practice. Staff at two Wellington region general practices with known populations of refugee-like migrants and former quota refugees were approached to participate in an exploratory qualitative study. Semistructured audio-recorded interviews and focus groups were undertaken. Deductive and inductive analyses were used to identify key themes. Twelve interviews were undertaken with professionals with backgrounds in clinical pharmacy, cross-cultural work, general practice medicine, primary care nursing, reception and social work. Key themes from the interviews were communication challenges, organisational structure and teamwork, considerations to best meet core health and support needs, and the value of contextual knowledge. Healthcare workers perceived many similarities between working with refugee-like migrants and working with former quota refugees. Even though communication challenges were addressed, there were still barriers affecting the delivery of core health and support services. Primary care practices should focus on organisational structure to provide high-quality, contextually informed, interprofessional team-based health and social care.

COVID-19 anti-Asian racism: A tripartite model of collective psychosocial resilience.

Anti-Asian racism has spiked since the outbreak of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, creating compounded threats to Asian Americans' psychological wellbeing on top of other pandemic stressors (e.g., fears of infection, financial insecurity, or quarantine isolation). COVID-19 anti-Asian racism signifies the relevance of race and racism during public health crises and highlights the importance of examining the psychological impacts of racialized stress and avenues for resilience during a pandemic. This article describes a conceptual model that emphasizes the importance of rechanneling the experience of COVID-19 anti-Asian racism toward resilience. Specifically, the proposed model identifies a tripartite process of collective psychosocial resilience, comprised of (a) critical consciousness of discrimination as a common fate, (b) critical consciousness-informed racial/ethnic identity, and (c) advocacy, for empowering Asian Americans and protecting them against the harmful effects of COVID-19 anti-Asian racism during and beyond the pandemic. Theoretical and empirical underpinnings of the proposed tripartite process for cultivating resilience against COVID-19 anti-Asian racism are delineated. Practice implications and future research directions, as informed and revealed by the conceptual model, are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).