Critical care nursing policy, practice, and research priorities: An international cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: To examine the status of critical care nursing internationally, assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and identify research priorities by surveying professional critical care nursing organizations (CCNOs) worldwide. DESIGN: A descriptive survey methodology was used. This study is the sixth worldwide quadrennial review to assess international critical care nursing needs and provide evidence to inform critical care nursing policy, practice and research priorities globally. METHODS: The sixth World Federation of Critical Care Nurses survey of CCNOs was emailed to potential participants from countries with CCNOs or known critical care nurse leaders. Data were collected online using Survey Monkey™. Responses were entered into SPSS version 28 software (IBM Corp.) and analyzed by geographical region and national wealth group. FINDINGS: Ninety-nine national representative respondents participated in the survey (70.7% response rate). The most important issues identified were working conditions, teamwork, staffing levels, formal practice guidelines, wages, and access to quality education programs. The top five CCNO services that were of most importance were providing national conferences, local conferences, workshops and education forums, practice standards and guidelines, and professional representation. Important pandemic-related services and activities provided by CCNOs included addressing emotional and mental well-being of nurses, providing guidance related to nurse staffing/workforce needs, assisting to coordinate efforts to obtain personal protective equipment supplies, serving as a country liaison with the World Health Organization's COVID-19 response activities, and assisting in the development and implementation of policies regarding standards of care. The most important contributions expected from the World Federation of Critical Care Nurses were standards for professional practice, standards for clinical practice, website resources, professional representation, and providing online education and training materials. The top five research priority areas were: stress levels (inclusive of burnout, emotional exhaustion and compassion fatigue); critical care nursing shortage, skill mix and workforce planning; recruitment, retention, turnover, working conditions; critical care nursing education and patient outcomes; and adverse events, staffing levels, patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight priority areas for critical care nursing internationally. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted critical care nurses as direct care providers. As a result, addressing the ongoing needs of critical care nurses remains a priority area of focus. The results also highlight important policy and research priorities for critical care nursing globally. Results of this survey should be incorporated into strategic action plans at the national and international levels. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Issues of importance to critical care nurses including research and policy priorities during and following COVID-19 are now clarified through this survey. The impact and importance that COVID-19 has had on critical care nurses and their preferences and priorities are provided. Clear guidance to leaders and policy makers on where critical care nurses would like to see greater focus and attention to help strengthen the contribution of critical care nursing practice to the global healthcare agenda.

Cancer nursing research priorities: A rapid review.

PURPOSE: Identifying cancer nursing research priorities is central to influencing the direction of cancer care research. The aim of this rapid review was to explore research priorities identified by oncology nurses for cancer care delivery between 2019 and 2022. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis informed the design of the rapid review. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PUBMED, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published between December 1st, 2018, and September 30th, 2022. This timeframe was chosen to account for the latest relevant evidence synthesis, as well as changes in cancer care necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Quality Assessment of Diverse Studies tool was used to appraise quality. RESULTS: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. Many of the research priorities identified were influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. The top cancer nursing research priority identified was the role of technology in improving patient and caregiver symptoms and health outcomes. Other most prevalent research priorities were focused on symptom management, culturally sensitive palliative and psychosocial care, early/integrated palliative care, financial toxicity, modifiable risk factors related to social determinants of health, public and patient involvement in research, and oncology nurses' well-being and scope of practice. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate a need to steer a strategic programme of cancer nursing research towards digitalisation in cancer care to meet the current needs of people living with cancer and their caregivers. However, cancer nurses' burnout, staff shortages and disparities in specialist education will hinder the implementation of certain models of care.

Research Priority 3: 'How can occupational therapists work more effectively with the family and carers of people who access services?'

The article reports that research is an essential pillar that supports profession. Topics include examines it plays a crucial role in ensuring that are providing evidence-based, cost-effective and impactful services that improve the lives of the individuals, groups and communities that rely upon them and considered it is also instrumental in promoting innovation and helps to adapt to future challenges.

Prioritization of operational research questions on COVID-19 vaccination in the African Region.

Introduction: a year after the start of COVID-19 vaccination, coverage remains very low in the African Region. Different challenges and operational barriers have been documented, but countries will need to supplement the available information with operational research in order to adequately respond to practical questions regarding how best to scale up COVID-19 vaccination. We conducted a survey among immunisation program staff working in the African Region, in order to identify the high priority operational research questions relevant to COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: proposed operational research questions categorized into six topic areas were sent to resource persons, asking them to rate according to the relevance, urgency, feasibility, and potential impact of the research questions on the progress of COVID vaccination. Results: a total of 25 research questions have been given an average weighted rating of 75% or more by the respondents. Nine of these top priority research questions were in the area of demand generation, risk communication and community engagement while 8 questions covered the area of service delivery. Conclusion: countries should plan for and coordinate stakeholders to ensure that relevant operational research is done to respond to the top priority research questions, with a view to influence policies and implementation of strategies.

Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study.

To rapidly respond to the COVID-19 public health crisis, researchers have been called upon to prioritize pandemic research, while simultaneously modifying their existing research to maintain the safety of all stakeholders. This study aims to explore the experiences of health science researchers in their scientific practices, research priorities, and professional relational dynamics due to COVID-19. Specifically, we interviewed 31 researchers from diverse fields at the University of Texas Medical Branch. Participants worked on COVID-19, non-COVID-19 related research, or both. We integrated inductive and deductive coding using a thematic coding method. The following four themes were explored: 1) impact of research, 2) research priorities, 3) professional relationships and 4) contextual influences on science. Participants were drawn to COVID-19 work for a diversity of reasons including social need, scientific interest, professional duty, and increased access to funding opportunities. While collaborations have increased for COVID-19 researchers, interpersonal relationships have been challenging for participants. Additionally, political, familial, and personal stresses due to the pandemic have taken a toll on researchers in very different and often inequitable ways. To ensure team cohesion, there is a need to develop research practices, policies and systems that value empathy, flexibility, and interdependence.

Promoting social resilience in service communities: a molecular biology perspective

Purpose This research aims to examine pathways for providers to facilitate social resilience in service communities to promote collective well-being and engagement. Design/methodology/approach Using abductive and metaphorical analysis, this study develops insights leveraging: the transdisciplinary field of molecular biology where 150 years of research demonstrates how cells build resilience through clustering together in a hostile environment;and case data collected with nonprofit service communities to help ground and elaborate upon the metaphorical analogues of cellular concepts. Findings This analysis uncovers the emergent processes of communal protection, communal adaptation and communal training within customer-to-customer service interactions. Findings identify novel drivers, such as the sharing of vulnerability markers and pre-training for community stressors, as well as pathways through which social resilience within service communities promotes habitual and transformative value, as well as collective well-being. Practical implications Service leaders can build upon the ideas in this research to understand the nature of social resilience and to intentionally design communal experiences and interactions that promote greater well-being and brand engagement. Originality/value The recent COVID-19 pandemic, along with the UN Development Goal for building a more resilient society, highlights the acute needs for a deeper understanding of social resilience. However, resilience-related research in marketing primarily focuses on individual-level coping. This research provides a deeper understanding of the drivers and outcomes of social resilience in service communities and offers a catalyst for future research on the topic.

Cancer Research in the Time of COVID-19: A Colombian Narrative.

Cancer research is deficient in Colombia and efforts and resources diverted due to the COVID-19 pandemic could worsen the situation. We explore the impact of the pandemic on cancer research funding, output, and conduct. We sought information at national level and used the experience of an academic reference center to contrast the impact at institutional level. We searched databases and official documents of national governmental institutions, trial registries, hospital registries, and the Web of Science. We interviewed principal investigators (PIs) to retrieve information on the conduct of cancer research. A decline in resource availability and new proposals was observed at the national level with a shift to COVID-19 related research. However, at institutional level there was no decline in the number of cancer research proposals. The predominance of observational studies as opposed to the preponderance of clinical trials and basic science in high-income countries may be related to the lower impact at institutional level. Nevertheless, we found difficulties similar to previous reports for conducting research during the pandemic. PIs reported long recovery times and a great impact on research other than clinical trials, such as observational and qualitative studies. No significant impact on research output was observed. Alternatives to ensure research continuity such as telemedicine and remote data collection have scarcely been implemented given limited access and low technology literacy. In this middle-income setting the situation shows a notable dependency of international collaborations to develop research on COVID-19 and cancer and to overcome challenges for cancer research during the pandemic.

Service Ecosystem Health: A Transformative Approach to Elevating Service Science

Events in the year 2020 threw human service systems into chaotic states, threatening peoples' lives and livelihoods. Before 2020, there were many profound challenges to human life that had been well documented by efforts such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to be a "last straw" crisis that has destabilized modern human civilization. This article diagnoses various crises of human service systems (e.g., COVID-19, inequality, and climate change) and proposes the metaphor of service ecosystem health for reimagining service science in a postpandemic world. Service ecosystem health is defined as the interdependent state of private, public, and planetary well-being necessary for sustaining life. This article reimagines service science, broadens transformative service research, builds the service ecosystem health metaphor, outlines the Goldilocks Civilization thought experiment, and explores designing for a Goldilocks civilization. Because service is for humans, the ultimate objective is to elevate service science to uplift human well-being.

Field Epidemiology and Public Health Research Priorities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: Delphi Technique.

Research is essential for evidence-based decision making. This study aimed to identify research priorities in the areas of field epidemiology and public health in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) from the perspectives of public health professionals. A Delphi technique, using online survey, was employed to reach 168 public health professionals who have experience in the EMR countries. The study took place between November 2019 and January 2020. Consensus on the research priorities was reached after two-round online questionnaires. A list of top 10 field epidemiology and public health research priorities in the EMR was developed. Of those priorities, four fell under health in emergency, war and armed conflict, two under communicable diseases, two under immunization, one under digital health, and one under sexual, reproductive, and adolescent health. Availability, adequacy, and quality of health services in crisis settings were scored as a top priority (mean = 4.4, rank 1), followed by use of technology to improve the collection, documentation, and analysis of health data (mean = 4.28, rank 2), and capacity of countries in the region to respond to emergencies (mean = 4.25, rank 3). This study was conducted prior to COVID-19 pandemic and, thus, it did not capture COVID-19 research as a priority area. Nevertheless, identified priorities under communicable diseases including outbreak investigation of infectious diseases, epidemics and challenges related to communicable diseases in the EMR were still notable. In conclusion, the field epidemiology and public health research priorities identified in this study through a systematic inclusive process could be useful to make informed decisions and gear the research efforts to improve the health of people in the EMR.

Research priorities to increase vaccination coverage in Europe (EU joint action on vaccination).

BACKGROUND: Deciding how best to invest in healthcare is never an easy task and prioritization is therefore an area of great interest for policymakers. Too low public vaccine confidence, which results in insufficient vaccine uptake, remains an area of concern for EU policy-makers. Within the European Joint action on vaccination, a work-package dedicated to research aims to define tools and methods for priority-setting in the field of vaccination research. We therefore propose a prioritization framework to identify research priorities towards generating and synthesizing evidence to support policies and strategies aiming at increasing vaccine coverage. MATERIALS/METHODS: We used a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method inspired by the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative developed by Rudan et al. This quantitative methodology follows a series of steps involving different groups of experts and relevant stakeholders. The first step consists in identifying key research questions through a broad consultation. In parallel, a first group of experts is tasked to select criteria for prioritization of research questions, taking into consideration the ultimate goal of the exercise. Another group of experts is then requested to assess a weight to each of the criteria, using pair-wise comparisons. The final step consists in gathering experts who will assess each research question against the weighted criteria. This evaluation leads to assigning a score to each individual research question, which can then be ranked in order of priority. RESULTS: We focused our work on four pre-selected pilot vaccines (pertussis, measles containing combination vaccines, influenza and HPV). The consultation generated 124 questions, which were secondarily sorted and re-worded to obtain 27 questions to be ranked. Criteria for setting priorities were the following: accessibility, answerability, deliverability, disease prevalence/incidence, effectiveness, equity, generalization, and territory. During a final face-to-face meeting international experts ranked the 27 questions and agreed on a consensual list of six top-priorities. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a transparent, evidence-based rigorous framework to defined key research questions to generate evidence towards the design of policies and strategies to increase vaccine coverage. Results were disseminated broadly and submitted to the EC for potential funding in the context of The Horizon Europe Program. The same process will be conducted in 2021 to identify vaccination research priorities regarding all vaccines used in the EU as well as COVID-19 vaccines.

Research priorities for control of zoonoses in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Zoonoses pose major threats to the health of humans, domestic animals and wildlife, as seen in the COVID-19 pandemic. Zoonoses are the commonest source of emerging human infections and inter-species transmission is facilitated by anthropogenic factors such as encroachment and destruction of wilderness areas, wildlife trafficking and climate change. South Africa was selected for a 'One Health' study to identify research priorities for control of zoonoses due to its complex disease burden and an overstretched health system. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of 18 experts identified priority zoonotic diseases, knowledge gaps and proposed research priorities for the next 5 y. Each priority was scored using predefined criteria by another group of five experts and then weighted by a reference group (n=28) and the 18 experts. RESULTS: Seventeen diseases were mentioned with the top five being rabies (14/18), TB (13/18), brucellosis (11/18), Rift Valley fever (9/11) and cysticercosis (6/18). In total, 97 specific research priorities were listed, with the majority on basic epidemiological research (n=57), such as measuring the burden of various zoonoses (n=24), followed by 20 on development of new interventions. The highest research priority score was for improving existing interventions (0.77/1.0), followed by health policy and systems research (0.72/1.0). CONCLUSION: Future zoonotic research should improve understanding of zoonotic burden and risk factors and new interventions in public health. People with limited rural services, immunocompromised, in informal settlements and high-risk occupations, should be the highest research priority.

The Promise of Science, Knowledge Mobilization, and Rapid Learning Systems for COVID-19 Recovery.

The health, economic, and social crises created by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been global in scope and inequitable in impact. The global road to recovery can be enhanced with robust, relevant, and timely scientific evidence. This commentary seeks to illustrate the power of science, scientific collaboration, and innovative research funding programs to inform pandemic recovery and inspire transformational changes for a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable future. Specifically, this commentary provides an introduction to the United Nations (UN) Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery that was published in November 2020. It introduces 5 scoping reviews that helped inform the UN Research Roadmap and that are now available open access within this series of special papers, and it provides an overview of an innovative research funding program that facilitated rapid mobilization and collaboration to produce the scoping reviews. The publication of the scoping reviews in this journal series will help complement and amplify the UN Research Roadmap by furthering knowledge mobilization efforts and informing COVID-19 recovery around the world, to ensure a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable postpandemic future.

Funding and COVID-19 research priorities - are the research needs for Africa being met?

Background: Emerging data from Africa indicates remarkably low numbers of reported COVID-19 deaths despite high levels of disease transmission. However, evolution of these trends as the pandemic progresses remains unknown. More certain are the devastating long-term impacts of the pandemic on health and development evident globally. Research tailored to the unique needs of African countries is crucial. UKCDR and GloPID-R have launched a tracker of funded COVID-19 projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and research priorities of Africa and less-resourced countries and published a baseline analysis of a living systematic review (LSR) of these projects.  Methods: In-depth analyses of the baseline LSR for COVID-19 funded research projects in Africa (as of 15th July 2020) to determine the funding landscape and alignment of the projects to research priorities of relevance to Africa.  Results: The limited COVID-19 related research across Africa appears to be supported mainly by international funding, especially from Europe, although with notably limited funding from United States-based funders. At the time of this analysis no research projects funded by an African-based funder were identified in the tracker although there are several active funding calls geared at research in Africa and there may be funding data that has not been made publicly available. Many projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and five particular gaps in research funding were identified, namely: investigating the role of children in COVID-19 transmission; effective modes of community engagement; health systems research; communication of uncertainties surrounding mother-to-child transmission of COVID-19; and identifying ways to promote international cooperation. Capacity strengthening was identified as a dominant theme in funded research project plans. Conclusions: We found significantly lower funding investments in COVID-19 research in Africa compared to high-income countries, seven months into the pandemic, indicating a paucity of research targeting the research priorities of relevance to Africa.

"An epoch-making and blessed moment in the history of medicine" -thoughts on international health equity and the Nobel prize in medicine.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is a prestigious award given every year for ostensibly the most important discovery in the field. Prizes in Medicine have typically gone to honor foundational knowledge rather than measurable impact. Two recent examples from global health (a rotavirus vaccine, child growth standards) offer alternatives for what might be lauded in medicine. These two examples and historical achievements regarding cholera and smallpox are worthy but do not fall within the scope of Nobel awards for Peace or Economics. The COVID-19 pandemic gives a new context for the idea that discovery and implementation are both keys to medicine. New patterns that redefine achievement in medicine could emerge by Nobel Prize precedent to promote greater health equity and international collaboration.

Developing an Environmental Health Sciences COVID-19 Research Agenda: Results from the NIEHS Disaster Research Response (DR2) Work Group's Modified Delphi Method.

Leveraging the community of practice recently established through the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Disaster Research Response (DR2) working group, we used a modified Delphi method to identify and prioritize environmental health sciences Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and associated Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) research questions. Twenty-six individuals with broad expertise across a variety of environmental health sciences subdisciplines were selected to participate among 45 self-nominees. In Round 1, panelists submitted research questions and brief justifications. In Round 2, panelists rated the priority of each question on a nine-point Likert scale. Responses were trichotomized into priority categories (low priority; medium priority; and high priority). A research question was determined to meet consensus if at least 69.2% of panelists rated it within the same priority category. Research needs that did not meet consensus in round 2 were redistributed for re-rating. Fourteen questions met consensus as high priority in round 2, and an additional 14 questions met consensus as high priority in round 3. We discuss the impact and limitations of using this approach to identify and prioritize research questions in the context of a disaster response.