ABSTRACT
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unprecedented labour market disruption, triggering the most severe global labour market crisis on record. The speed and depth of the crisis rendered labour force survey data unable to provide timely information. The ILO nowcasting model was designed to track the disruption in the world of work caused by the pandemic. This required: 1) filling data gaps, 2) increasing the timeliness of available data, and 3) focusing on an indicator that captured well the pandemic disruption: hours worked. The estimates obtained from the ILO nowcasting model have become the backbone of the empirical strategy behind the ILO Monitor on the World of Work publication series. The latest estimates corroborate that the pandemic induced very large declines in hours worked at an unprecedented speed. Furthermore, the recovery process has stalled, driven by a stagnant recovery in developing economies. The country-level input data and estimates of the ILO nowcasting model allow for complementary analysis, which was published in the ILO Monitor. The topics included the effects of COVID-19 testing and tracing, fiscal stimulus, and vaccination on labour market outcomes. © 2022 - The authors.
ABSTRACT
Learning Objectives (1) Assess and compare knowledge and literacy of over-the -counter (OTC) pain medications within the West Virginia general population. (2) Understand over-the-counter (OTC) pain medication perceptions within the West Virginia general population. (3) Assess educational efforts for West Virginia High School Students in the realm of over-the-counter (OTC) pain medication knowledge. Purpose We are in the midst of a new wave of our 'Opioid Crisis,' with an American dying of a drug overdose every 6 minutes, while a baby is born dependent on opioids every 30 minutes. Yet, with countless regulations on prescription and illicit opioids, and many other substances of abuse or medications, we continue to have tens of thousands of health risks with the utilization of Over-the-Counter (OTC) pain medications. Every year in our country, approximately 50,000 people visit an emergency room (ER) due to the over-the-counter (OTC) pain medication known as acetaminophen (Tylenol). In wild and wonderful West Virginia, colloquially known as the 'Ground Zero' of the 'Opioid Crisis,' an interprofessional team of clinicians and researchers wanted to make a difference. Not merely a publication, nor just a poster, but an actual tangible difference in the lives of our residents. A collaboration was formed between West Virginia University (WVU) clinicians and researchers teaming up with Health Sciences and Technology Academy (HSTA) Community Research Associates to educate high school students across West Virginia, and empower them to screen the lay public for knowledge regarding OTC pain medications. Fentanyl, its analogs, and heroin dominate our current death tolls, yet OTC pain medications are readily available everywhere for anyone in pharmacies, grocery stores, convenience stores, and even hotel gift shops. This availability begs the question as to whether our society needs more education on the safe and effective utilization of OTC pain medications, and perhaps if research and development of lower risk medications is also warranted. In this project, we had two main objectives including: 1. Assess and compare knowledge and literacy of over-thecounter (OTC) pain medications within the West Virginia general population. 2. Understand over-the-counter (OTC) pain medication perceptions within the West Virginia general population. Methods The Health Sciences and Technology Academy (HSTA) Community Research Associates teamed up with an interprofessional research team from West Virginia University including PharmD, PhD, and MD clinicians. HSTA programs facilitate the active learning of high school students in the realm of health sciences and technology within a collaboration of actual healthcare professionals. This overall project received IRB approval from West Virginia University. The first aim of this overall project concentrated on the education of HSTA students on over-the-counter (OTC) pain medications in respect to safety and efficacy. WVU researchers developed pre-and-post student surveys and seven informational lessons for HSTA students to complete with both didactic and active learning efforts to facilitate comprehensive learning. The second aim of this overall project concentrated the screening and understanding of the lay public within West Virginia in respect to knowledge of the safety and efficacy of OTC pain medications including acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and naproxen. WVU researchers developed a communitybased screening survey which included gauging questions involving knowledge and perceptions. Whenever a person completed the screening survey answering in the affirmative to questions demanding consultation with a healthcare professional, a recommendation was made to do just that. The following were the 'knowledge-based' community screening survey questions: What is the difference between acetaminophen and Tylenol? (No Difference) What is the difference between ibuprofen and Motrin? (No Difference) What is the difference between naproxen and Aleve? (No Difference) Generally speaking, over-the-counter (OTC) pain me ications (compared to pain medications requiring a prescription) are: (As effective, but with certain safety concerns) When taking a liquid over-the-counter pain medicine, one should: (measure with an oral syringe) If you, a family member, or a friend accidentally took too many over-the-counter pain medicines, who is the most appropriate contact? (Poison Center or 911) What is the largest amount of over-the-counter (OTC) acetaminophen extra strength 500 mg tablets that anyone can swallow in one day before contacting a healthcare professional? (6) What is the largest amount of over-the-counter (OTC) ibuprofen 200 mg tablets that anyone can swallow in one day before contacting a healthcare professional? (6) What is the largest amount of over-the-counter (OTC) naproxen 220 mg tablets that anyone can swallow in one day before contacting a healthcare professional? (3) All data was collected through HIPAA certified REDCap online data collection software. HSTA student pre/post data was analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational materials and for the specific purpose of this study, the community screening survey results were evaluated to understand the communities understanding of OTC pain medications. Results In the community outreach portion of this project, a total of 1,174 community members completed the screening survey. The first portion had a 'perception' theme, with one of the main questions being 'Whom do you ask questions regarding any OTC pain medications?.' Responses included people stating doctor (51%), pharmacist (45%), and family (46%). Although healthcare professionals are viewed as organic sources of this information, concern can arise when people state of relying upon mere family members for this healthcare information. The second portion included nine (9) knowledge-based questions regarding the safety and efficacy of OTC pain medications including acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and naproxen. The overall median of knowledge-based survey questions answered correctly of the nine total was five, with a standard deviation of two. Only 2 of 1,174 people answered all nine questions correctly, while 12% answered every single question incorrectly. Overall, 85% answered 2/3rds of the questions incorrectly, while 71% answered more than half of all questions incorrectly. All results had a p-value of < 0.001 correlating to strong statistical significance. Further analysis was conducted in respect to the demographics of sex, race, age, education level, and income level. Female respondents fared better with a mean of 3.6 correct responses compared to male respondents with 2.3 mean correct responses. In respect to race, Caucasian respondents had the most correct answers with a mean of 3.2, followed by Black (2.5), Latino (2.3), Asian (1.9), and 'other (1.9). In respect to age, the most correct responses belonged to the 26yo to 45yo age group with a mean of 5.1 correct answers, followed by 46yo to 64yo (4.6), at least 65yo (3.3), 18yo to 25yo (2.9), less than 18yo (2.2), and 'prefer not to answer' (1.5). In respect to education level, the most correct responses belonged to those with a Bachelor's degree (Mean 5.1), followed by Master's degree (5), high school graduate (4.4), Doctorate degree (4.3), in high school (2.4, 'prefer not to answer' (1.6), and some high school (1.8). In respect to income level, the most correct responses belonged to those with an income of $40,001 to $80,000 (mean 4.3), followed by $80,001 to $100,000 (4.1), $20,000 to $40,000 (3.9), greater than $100,000 (3.6), less than $20,000 (2.5), and 'prefer not to answer' (2.2). There was great diversity observed in these demographic results, including unexpected results (e.g. a higher education level or a higher income level, resulting in lower knowledge-based question scores). Conclusion This statistically significant study data protrudes the absolute need for widespread OTC pain medication safety and efficacy education. Even though these medications are available without a prescription, or in other words, without any mandated healthcare profession l guidance or recommendations, each year there continues to be approximately 50,000 acetaminophen-related emergency room (ER) visits annually in the United States. Considering that this study also involved other OTC pain medications known as Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) including ibuprofen and naproxen, one can easily understand the need for more education, or perhaps even novel OTC pain medications with lower risk profiles. Considering the observed increase in OTC selfcare medication use during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the lockdown of most healthcare systems, the need for more education and perhaps lower risk OTC pain medications is promulgated now more than ever, especially as more and more people are recommended or prescribed/dispensed non-opioid pain management medications. Based on the results of this study, the authors agree that future more geographically and demographically diverse studies are needed in order to understand the national, or even international, understanding of perceptions and knowledge of OTC pain medications in respect to safety and efficacy.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: As Canada embarks on its rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, vaccine hesitancy has the potential to hamper success of the vaccination campaign. Multiple surveys show that the number of Canadians willing to take the vaccine is insufficient to achieve herd immunity. Therefore, governments and health agencies are looking for solutions to increase vaccination uptake. Obtaining a better understanding of the perspective of those who are vaccine-hesitant is critical to developing successful implementation strategies for COVID-19 vaccination. OBJECTIVES: To explore COVID-19 vaccination determinants among hesitant caregivers and describe categories of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. DESIGN/METHODS: We conducted 23 semi-structured telephone interviews with parents recruited from a tertiary pediatric care centre. Seventeen participants had previously attended a specialty clinic to discuss vaccine hesitancy;the remaining were recruited from an infectious diseases follow-up clinic. The interview guide was structured around the Theoretical Domains Framework, assessing 14 behavioural constructs to identify specific determinants that guide behaviour change. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by two independent data coders using a pragmatic inductive approach. Recurring themes were noted among subgroups of participants, who were subsequently divided into categories based on their underlying concerns. RESULTS: Five archetypes of vaccine-hesitant caregivers emerged in our data (Table 1). 1). "Bubble Dwellers" perceive themselves to be safe by following public health recommendations, and distinguish themselves from higher-risk groups to whom the vaccine should first be offered. 2). "Worriers and Delayers" identify the pandemic as a threat and are generally supportive of vaccines, but are concerned about side effects and issues surrounding vaccine development and prefer to delay vaccination. 3). "Need-for-Normals" are more concerned about social isolation and the economy than the direct effects of the COVID-19 virus, but express that the idea of a "return to normal" may sway their opinions regarding the vaccine. 4). "Exceptionalists" hold personal misperceptions of vaccine contraindications due to comorbidities or previous experiences with vaccination, and are concerned that the current rollout invokes a "one size fits all" model that does not apply to their circumstances. 5. "Freedom Fighters" view the pandemic as a hoax, are anti-establishment, and believe the information they have been provided is not convincing for them to adopt the vaccine. CONCLUSION: The evolving pandemic provides a unique opportunity to understand determinants of vaccination intention in the vaccine hesitant population. Our qualitative study is unique in that we were able to draw upon pre-identified vaccine hesitant individuals to explore their perspectives around COVID-19 immunization. We propose that rather than viewing these individuals as one homogenous group, policymakers and health professionals address these discrete subgroups with specific communication tools and information. We are hopeful that our results will help tailor implementation strategies that are targeted to different vaccine hesitancy archetypes, as the vaccine is made available to the general public in the coming year.
ABSTRACT
Rationale: COVID-19 has triggered significant research activities worldwide, leading to an immense number of scientific publications in the MEDLINE. Given the high publication volume, proper combinations of structured subject headings (MeSH) and keywords are required to narrow down the search within the COVID-19 literature to the most relevant subtopic. Manual keyword selection is time-consuming and may not always be feasible. The recent text mining algorithms permit automated extraction of keywords from publications identified during pilot reference searches. It is not clear, though, whether automated keyword extraction would be useful if carried out on the pilot reference sample without prior enrichment for the COVID-19 subtopic of interest. This was addressed in the present study. Methods: A non-comprehensive MEDLINE search on the subtopic “Digital telemedicine in COVID-19” was conducted to obtain a pilot reference sample. Without manual enrichment for pertinent publications, keywords from this reference sample were extracted using two R packages, “revtools” (utilizes topic models and weighed keyword ranking) and “litsearchr” (utilizes keyword co-occurrence networks). In parallel, a manual systematic MEDLINE search strategy (MeSH concepts and headings, and manually-selected keywords, the total of 75 terms) was designed on the above topic as per PICO criteria and expert discussions. The automatically extracted keywords were then compared with the terms in manual MEDLINE search strategy. Results: The “revtools” package extracted 150 keywords from the “non-enriched” pilot reference sample. Of those, 12 (8%) keywords (either individual words or phrases) overlapped with the terms already present in the manual MEDLINE search strategy. This extraction also yielded 3 unique keywords useful to augment the manual search strategy. The “litsearchr” package extracted 203 keywords. Of those, 4 (1.97%) overlapped with the terms in the manual MEDLINE search strategy. In addition, 4 unique phrases extracted by this package were found useful for the manual search strategy. The automatically extracted and useful keywords (respectively, 3 and 4) were unique for each package. Conclusions: Automated keyword extraction, despite parallel utilization of different algorithms, cannot yet fully replace an expert-built manual MEDLINE search strategy on COVID-19. Yet this extraction, even if conducted on a non-comprehensive and non-enriched reference sample, can augment the manual search. Automated extraction from the reference sample enriched for the COVID-19 subtopic of interest may further increase the yield of useful keywords.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The corona crisis not only affects professional activities but also teaching and learning at universities. Buzzwords, such as elearning and digitalization suggest the possibility of innovative teaching approaches that are readily available to solve the problems of teaching in the current COVID-19 pandemic. The current conversion to digital teaching is not primarily driven by didactic rationale or institutional strategy but by external circumstances. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the teaching situation at national university ENT clinics and academic teaching hospitals at the start of the virtual corona summer semester in 2020. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A specifically self-designed questionnaire regarding the local situation and conditions as well as nationwide scenarios was sent to all 39 national university ENT clinics and 20 ENT departments at academic teaching hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 31 university hospitals and 10 academic teaching hospitals took part in the survey. There were obvious discrepancies between available resources and effectively available digital teaching and learning contents. Further criticism was expressed regarding the communication with the medical faculty, the digital infrastructure and particularly the frequent lack of collaboration with central support facilities, such as media, didactics and datacenters. CONCLUSION: There are positive examples of successful transformation of classroom teaching to an exclusively virtual summer semester 2020 within the university ENT clinics; however, critical ratings of assistant professors and medical directors regarding the current teaching situation predominated. A time-critical strategic advancement is urgently needed.