Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
Journal of Economic Studies ; 50(1):49-72, 2023.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-2244531


Purpose: A systematic, PRISMA-guided literature review was conducted using four databases (ProQuest, PubMed, EconLit and Scopus) to analyze research published between February 2020 and August 2021. This review included 31 studies out of 1,248 that were identified. Design/methodology/approach: In addition to the serious health issues it causes, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) has a destructive impact on the global economy. The objectives of this study are (1) to examine the growing literature on variations of economic factors due to COVID-19 (2) to review the literature on the governmental response to the pandemic and (3) to discover the perspective and the gaps and outline the future avenues for further research. Findings: All selected studies (31) have used the macroeconomic, household and health economic factors to analyze the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among these studies, 22 articles examined the economic consequences and macroeconomic activities, 7 analyzed microeconomic costs and healthcare trade-offs and 2 studies reviewed economic uncertainty and macroeconomic expectations. Research limitations/implications: This study comprises the most relevant research articles to measure the economic consequences of COVID-19. As a result of the lockdown and other containment initiatives, price levels, employment and consumption patterns have all suffered. Practical implications: Therefore, the government's requirement to develop policy tools and approaches to ensure a full recovery from the pandemic should lead to greater long-term economic resilience. Originality/value: This study examines the economic implications of COVID-19, with the aim of not only analysing COVID-19's negative economic effects but also, those measures that provide new directions in the form of short-run economic impacts and policy decisions. © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited.

Progress in Additive Manufacturing ; 2023.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-2234808


The publication of this article unfortunately contained mistakes. The funding note was not correct. The corrected funding note is given below. Funding The current study was funded by;The National Key Research and Development Program of China [Grant No. 2019QY(Y)0502];The Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province [Grant No. 2020ZDLSF04- 07];The National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant No. 51905438];The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [Grant No. 31020190502009];The Innovation Platform of Bio fabrication [Grant No. 17SF0002];and China postdoctoral Science Foundation [Grant No. 2020M673471]. The original article has been corrected. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023.

Med J Malaysia ; 77(6): 724-729, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2125771


INTRODUCTION: Our faculty used one long case (LC) and three short cases for the clinical component of the final professional examinations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the LC had to be replaced with scenario-based clinical examination (SBCE) due to the impracticability of using recently hospitalised patients. While keeping the short case component as usual, the LC had to be replaced with SBCE in 2020 for the first time at a short notice. To evaluate the positive and negative aspects of SBCE and LC to determine the feasibility of replacing LC with SBCE in future examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the LC scores of three previous years with those of the SBCE and studied the feedback of the three stakeholders: students, examiners, and simulated patients (SPs), regarding their experience with SBCE and the suitability of SBCE as an alternative for LC in future examinations. RESULTS: The SBCE scores were higher than those of the LC. Most of the examiners and students were not in favour of SBCE replacing LC, as such. The SPs were more positive about the proposition. The comments of the three stakeholders brought out the plus and minus points of LC and SBCE, which prompted our proposals to make SBCE more practical for future examinations. CONCLUSION: Having analysed the feedback of the stakeholders, and the positive and negative aspects of LC and SBCE, it was evident that SBCE needed improvements. We have proposed eight modifications to SBCE to make it a viable alternative for LC.

COVID-19 , Educational Measurement , Humans , Pandemics , Students , Feasibility Studies