Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 222
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0243263, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1576004

ABSTRACT

As mobile device location data become increasingly available, new analyses are revealing the significant changes of mobility pattern when an unplanned event happened. With different control policies from local and state government, the COVID-19 outbreak has dramatically changed mobility behavior in affected cities. This study has been investigating the impact of COVID-19 on the number of people involved in crashes accounting for the intensity of different control measures using Negative Binomial (NB) method. Based on a comprehensive dataset of people involved in crashes aggregated in New York City during January 1, 2020 to May 24, 2020, people involved in crashes with respect to travel behavior, traffic characteristics and socio-demographic characteristics are found. The results show that the average person miles traveled on the main traffic mode per person per day, percentage of work trip have positive effect on person involved in crashes. On the contrary, unemployment rate and inflation rate have negative effects on person involved in crashes. Interestingly, different level of control policies during COVID-19 outbreak are closely associated with safety awareness, driving and travel behavior, and thus has an indirect influence on the frequency of crashes. Comparing to other three control policies including emergence declare, limits on mass gatherings, and ban on all nonessential gathering, the negative relationship between stay-at-home policy implemented in New York City from March 20, 2020 and the number of people involved crashes is found in our study.


Subject(s)
Accidents, Traffic/statistics & numerical data , Automobile Driving/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 , Safety/statistics & numerical data , Travel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , New York City , Public Policy , Risk-Taking
3.
Surg Today ; 51(3): 447-451, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453756

ABSTRACT

Accumulation of experience and advances in techniques and instruments have enabled surgeons to perform video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) safely for sublobar resection, including segmentectomy and wedge resection. A key to successful VATS sublobar resection is to have adequate resection margins and the appropriate use of articulated surgical staplers is essential for this purpose. The SigniaTM stapling system (Covidien Japan, Tokyo) has been used extensively in the fields of thoracic surgery. Its features include high maneuverability with fully powered articulation, rotation, clamping, and firing, which the surgeon can control with one hand. We introduce the "sliding technique" using the SigniaTM system, which allows for adjustment of the resection lines of the pulmonary parenchyma to optimize safe surgical margins with minimal stapler movement, and without repetitively moving the stapler in and out of the pleural cavity, during VATS sublobar resection.


Subject(s)
Lung Neoplasms/surgery , Lung/surgery , Margins of Excision , Pneumonectomy/instrumentation , Pneumonectomy/methods , Surgical Staplers , Surgical Stapling/instrumentation , Surgical Stapling/methods , Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted/instrumentation , Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted/methods , Humans , Safety
4.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 20(1): 101, 2020 Feb 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455959

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Having psychologically safe teams can improve learning, creativity and performance within organisations. Within a healthcare context, psychological safety supports patient safety by enabling engagement in quality improvement and encouraging staff to speak up about errors. Despite the low levels of psychological safety in healthcare teams and the important role it plays in supporting patient safety, there is a dearth of research on interventions that can be used to improve psychological safety or its related constructs. This review synthesises the content, theoretical underpinnings and outcomes of interventions which have targeted psychological safety, speaking up, and voice behaviour within a healthcare setting. It aims to identify successful interventions and inform the development of more effective interventions. METHODS: A key word search strategy was developed and used to search electronic databases (PsycINFO, ABI/Inform, Academic search complete and PubMed) and grey literature databases (OpenGrey, OCLC WorldCat, Espace). Covidence, an online specialised systematic review website, was used to screen records. Data extraction, quality appraisal and narrative synthesis were conducted on identified papers. RESULTS: Fourteen interventions were reviewed. These interventions fell into five categories. Educational interventions used simulation, video presentations, case studies and workshops while interventions which did not include an educational component used holistic facilitation, forum play and action research meetings. Mixed results were found for the efficacy or effectiveness of these interventions. While some interventions showed improvement in outcomes related to psychological safety, speaking up and voice, this was not consistently demonstrated across interventions. Included interventions' ability to demonstrate improvements in these outcomes were limited by a lack of objective outcome measures and the ability of educational interventions alone to change deeply rooted speaking up behaviours. CONCLUSION: To improve our understanding of the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions targeting psychological safety, speaking up and voice behaviour, longitudinal and multifaceted interventions are needed. In order to understand whether these interventions are successful, more objective measures should be developed. It is recommended that future research involves end users in the design phase of interventions, target both group and organisational levels, ensure visible leader support and work across and within interdisciplinary teams. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018100659.


Subject(s)
Health Personnel/psychology , Interprofessional Relations , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Safety , Humans , Patient Safety
5.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 118(40)2021 10 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440509

ABSTRACT

Global cooperation rests on popular endorsement of cosmopolitan values-putting all humanity equal to or ahead of conationals. Despite being comparative judgments that may trade off, even sacrifice, the in-group's interests for the rest of the world, moral cosmopolitanism finds support in large, nationally representative surveys from Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, Japan, the United States, Colombia, and Guatemala. A series of studies probe this trading off of the in-group's interests against the world's interests. Respondents everywhere distinguish preventing harm to foreign citizens, which almost all support, from redistributing resources, which only about half support. These two dimensions of moral cosmopolitanism, equitable security (preventing harm) and equitable benefits (redistributing resources), predict attitudes toward contested international policies, actual charitable donations, and preferences for mask and vaccine allocations in the COVID-19 response. The dimensions do not reflect several demographic variables and only weakly reflect political ideology. Moral cosmopolitanism also differs from related psychological constructs such as group identity. Finally, to understand the underlying thought structures, natural language processing reveals cognitive associations underlying moral cosmopolitanism (e.g., world, both) versus the alternative, parochial moral mindset (e.g., USA, first). Making these global or local terms accessible introduces an effective intervention that at least temporarily leads more people to behave like moral cosmopolitans.


Subject(s)
Internationality , Morals , Humans , Judgment , Linguistics , Psychological Theory , Public Policy , Resource Allocation , Safety , Surveys and Questionnaires
7.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(7): 939-949, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1433943

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccines have shown excellent safety and efficacy in phase 3 trials. We aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines in a UK community setting. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we examined the proportion and probability of self-reported systemic and local side-effects within 8 days of vaccination in individuals using the COVID Symptom Study app who received one or two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine or one dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. We also compared infection rates in a subset of vaccinated individuals subsequently tested for SARS-CoV-2 with PCR or lateral flow tests with infection rates in unvaccinated controls. All analyses were adjusted by age (≤55 years vs >55 years), sex, health-care worker status (binary variable), obesity (BMI <30 kg/m2vs ≥30 kg/m2), and comorbidities (binary variable, with or without comorbidities). FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, and March 10, 2021, 627 383 individuals reported being vaccinated with 655 590 doses: 282 103 received one dose of BNT162b2, of whom 28 207 received a second dose, and 345 280 received one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were reported by 13·5% (38 155 of 282 103) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 22·0% (6216 of 28 207) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 33·7% (116 473 of 345 280) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Local side-effects were reported by 71·9% (150 023 of 208 767) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 68·5% (9025 of 13 179) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 58·7% (104 282 of 177 655) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were more common (1·6 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 2·9 times after the first dose of BNT162b2) among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection than among those without known past infection. Local effects were similarly higher in individuals previously infected than in those without known past infection (1·4 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 1·2 times after the first dose of BNT162b2). 3106 of 103 622 vaccinated individuals and 50 340 of 464 356 unvaccinated controls tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Significant reductions in infection risk were seen starting at 12 days after the first dose, reaching 60% (95% CI 49-68) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 69% (66-72) for BNT162b2 at 21-44 days and 72% (63-79) for BNT162b2 after 45-59 days. INTERPRETATION: Systemic and local side-effects after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination occur at frequencies lower than reported in phase 3 trials. Both vaccines decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12 days. FUNDING: ZOE Global, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Research and Innovation, American Gastroenterological Association.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccination/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Safety/statistics & numerical data , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom
8.
Pediatr Clin North Am ; 68(5): 961-976, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1428320

ABSTRACT

Children usually present with milder symptoms of COVID-19 as compared with adults. Supportive care alone is appropriate for most children with COVID-19. Antiviral therapy may be required for those with severe or critical diseases. Currently there has been a rapid development of vaccines globally to prevent COVID-19 and several vaccines are being evaluated in children and adolescents. Currently, only the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA vaccine is approved for emergency authorization use in the pediatric population ages 16 years and older.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/prevention & control , Vaccines, Synthetic/therapeutic use , Adolescent , Child , Humans , Safety , Vaccines, Synthetic/adverse effects
11.
Anatol J Cardiol ; 25(Suppl 1): 34-35, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1380054

ABSTRACT

Air traffic has been a main vector for the global spread of COVID-19. The risk of in-flight transmission can vary widely, depending on different parameters. Therefore, implementation of measures for air travel safety is very important.


Subject(s)
Air Travel , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Safety
12.
Lancet HIV ; 8(9): e568-e580, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1366764

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: People living with HIV are at an increased risk of fatal outcome when admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19 compared with HIV-negative individuals. We aimed to assess safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in people with HIV and HIV-negative individuals in South Africa. METHODS: In this ongoing, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1B/2A trial (COV005), people with HIV and HIV-negative participants aged 18-65 years were enrolled at seven South African locations and were randomly allocated (1:1) with full allocation concealment to receive a prime-boost regimen of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, with two doses given 28 days apart. Eligibility criteria for people with HIV included being on antiretroviral therapy for at least 3 months, with a plasma HIV viral load of less than 1000 copies per mL. In this interim analysis, safety and reactogenicity was assessed in all individuals who received at least one dose of ChAdOx1 nCov 19 between enrolment and Jan 15, 2021. Primary immunogenicity analyses included participants who received two doses of trial intervention and were SARS-CoV-2 seronegative at baseline. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04444674, and the Pan African Clinicals Trials Registry, PACTR202006922165132. FINDINGS: Between June 24 and Nov 12, 2020, 104 people with HIV and 70 HIV-negative individuals were enrolled. 102 people with HIV (52 vaccine; 50 placebo) and 56 HIV-negative participants (28 vaccine; 28 placebo) received the priming dose, 100 people with HIV (51 vaccine; 49 placebo) and 46 HIV-negative participants (24 vaccine; 22 placebo) received two doses (priming and booster). In participants seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline, there were 164 adverse events in those with HIV (86 vaccine; 78 placebo) and 237 in HIV-negative participants (95 vaccine; 142 placebo). Of seven serious adverse events, one severe fever in a HIV-negative participant was definitely related to trial intervention and one severely elevated alanine aminotranferase in a participant with HIV was unlikely related; five others were deemed unrelated. One person with HIV died (unlikely related). People with HIV and HIV-negative participants showed vaccine-induced serum IgG responses against wild-type Wuhan-1 Asp614Gly (also known as D614G). For participants seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 antigens at baseline, full-length spike geometric mean concentration (GMC) at day 28 was 163·7 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL (95% CI 89·9-298·1) for people with HIV (n=36) and 112·3 BAU/mL (61·7-204·4) for HIV-negative participants (n=23), with a rising day 42 GMC booster response in both groups. Baseline SARS-CoV-2 seropositive people with HIV demonstrated higher antibody responses after each vaccine dose than did people with HIV who were seronegative at baseline. High-level binding antibody cross-reactivity for the full-length spike and receptor-binding domain of the beta variant (B.1.351) was seen regardless of HIV status. In people with HIV who developed high titre responses, predominantly those who were receptor-binding domain seropositive at enrolment, neutralising activity against beta was retained. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was well tolerated, showing favourable safety and immunogenicity in people with HIV, including heightened immunogenicity in SARS-CoV-2 baseline-seropositive participants. People with HIV showed cross-reactive binding antibodies to the beta variant and Asp614Gly wild-type, and high responders retained neutralisation against beta. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, South African Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and the South African Medical Research Council.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , HIV Infections/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cross Reactions , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Male , Mutation , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Safety , Vaccination
13.
J Clin Invest ; 130(9): 4791-4797, 2020 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1365265

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDConvalescent plasma is the only antibody-based therapy currently available for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has robust historical precedence and sound biological plausibility. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not yet been shown to be safe as a treatment for COVID-19.METHODSThus, we analyzed key safety metrics after transfusion of ABO-compatible human COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 hospitalized adults with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, with 66% in the intensive care unit, as part of the US FDA expanded access program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma.RESULTSThe incidence of all serious adverse events (SAEs), including mortality rate (0.3%), in the first 4 hours after transfusion was <1%. Of the 36 reported SAEs, there were 25 reported incidences of related SAEs, including mortality (n = 4), transfusion-associated circulatory overload (n = 7), transfusion-related acute lung injury (n = 11), and severe allergic transfusion reactions (n = 3). However, only 2 of 36 SAEs were judged as definitely related to the convalescent plasma transfusion by the treating physician. The 7-day mortality rate was 14.9%.CONCLUSIONGiven the deadly nature of COVID-19 and the large population of critically ill patients included in these analyses, the mortality rate does not appear excessive. These early indicators suggest that transfusion of convalescent plasma is safe in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04338360.FUNDINGMayo Clinic, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (75A50120C00096), National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR002377), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (5R35HL139854 and R01 HL059842), National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (5T32DK07352), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (PDF-532926-2019), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (R21 AI145356, R21 AI152318, and AI152078), Schwab Charitable Fund, United Health Group, National Basketball Association, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, and Octapharma USA Inc.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Compassionate Use Trials , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Safety , Transfusion Reaction/epidemiology , Transfusion Reaction/etiology , Transfusion-Related Acute Lung Injury/epidemiology , Transfusion-Related Acute Lung Injury/etiology , United States/epidemiology , United States Food and Drug Administration , Young Adult
15.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(31): 1053-1058, 2021 Aug 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1344579

ABSTRACT

As of July 30, 2021, among the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States, only the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for adolescents aged 12-17 years. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for use in persons aged ≥16 years on December 11, 2020 (1); the EUA was expanded to include adolescents aged 12-15 years on May 10, 2021 (2), based on results from a Phase 3 clinical trial (3). Beginning in June 2021, cases of myocarditis and myopericarditis (hereafter, myocarditis) after receipt of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine began to be reported, primarily among young males after receipt of the second dose (4,5). On June 23, 2021, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) reviewed available data and concluded that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to individual persons and the population outweigh the risks for myocarditis and recommended continued use of the vaccine in persons aged ≥12 years (6). To further characterize safety of the vaccine, adverse events after receipt of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and adverse events and health impact assessments reported in v-safe (a smartphone-based safety surveillance system) were reviewed for U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years during December 14, 2020-July 16, 2021. As of July 16, 2021, approximately 8.9 million U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years had received Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.* VAERS received 9,246 reports after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination in this age group; 90.7% of these were for nonserious adverse events and 9.3% were for serious adverse events, including myocarditis (4.3%). Approximately 129,000 U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years enrolled in v-safe after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination; they reported local (63.4%) and systemic (48.9%) reactions with a frequency similar to that reported in preauthorization clinical trials. Systemic reactions were more common after dose 2. CDC and FDA continue to monitor vaccine safety and provide data to ACIP to guide COVID-19 vaccine recommendations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Safety , Adolescent , Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Myocarditis/epidemiology , Risk Assessment , United States/epidemiology , Vaccines, Synthetic/adverse effects
16.
Br J Haematol ; 195(4): 523-531, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1341248

ABSTRACT

Haemato-oncological patients are at risk in case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Currently, vaccination is the best-evaluated preventive strategy. In the present study, we aimed to assess serological response, predictive markers, and safety of BNT162b2 in haemato-oncological patients. A total of 259 haemato-oncological patients were vaccinated with two 30 µg doses of BNT162b2 administered 21 days apart. Serological response was assessed by ELECSYS® Anti-SARS-CoV-2-S immunoassay before vaccination, and at 3 and 7 weeks after the first dose (T1, T2). Safety assessment was performed. At T2 spike protein receptor binding domain (S/RBD) antibodies were detected in 71·4% of haematological and in 94·5% of oncological patients (P < 0·001). Haematological patients receiving systemic treatment had a 14·2-fold increased risk of non-responding (95% confidence interval 3·2-63·3, P = 0·001). Subgroups of patients with lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia were at highest risk of serological non-response. Low immunoglobulin G (IgG) level, lymphocyte- and natural killer (NK)-cell counts were significantly associated with poor serological response (P < 0·05). Vaccination was well tolerated with only 2·7% of patients reporting severe side-effects. Patients with side-effects developed a higher S/RBD-antibody titre compared to patients without side-effects (P = 0·038). Haematological patients under treatment were at highest risk of serological non-response. Low lymphocytes, NK cells and IgG levels were found to be associated with serological non-response. Serological response in oncological patients was encouraging. The use of BNT162b2 is safe in haemato-oncological patients.


Subject(s)
Antibody Formation/drug effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hematologic Neoplasms/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Antibody Formation/immunology , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Female , Humans , Immunoassay/methods , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Killer Cells, Natural/cytology , Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell/immunology , Lymphocytes/cytology , Lymphoma/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Safety
17.
Int J Pharm Pract ; 29(5): 458-464, 2021 Oct 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1338701

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To explore home medicine practices and safety for people shielding and/or over the age of 70 during the COVID-19 pandemic and to create guidance, from the patient/carer perspective, for enabling safe medicine practices for this population. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 50 UK participants who were shielding and/or over the age of 70 and who used medicines for a long-term condition, using telephone or video conferencing. Participants were recruited through personal/professional networks and through patient/carer organisations. Participants were asked about their experiences of managing medicines during the pandemic and how this differed from previous practices. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. KEY FINDINGS: Patients' and their families' experiences of managing medicines safely during the pandemic varied greatly. Analysis suggests that this was based on the patient's own agency, the functioning of their medicines system pre-pandemic and their relationships with family, friends, community networks and pharmacy staff. Medicine safety issues reported included omitted doses and less-effective formulations being used. Participants also described experiencing high levels of anxiety related to obtaining medicines, monitoring medicines and feeling at risk of contracting COVID-19 while accessing healthcare services for medicine-related issues. Effects of the pandemic on medicines adherence were reported to be positive by some and negative by others. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy staff have a key role to play by establishing good relationships with patients and their families, working with prescribers to ensure medicines systems are as joined up as possible, and signposting to community networks that can help with medicines collection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Caregivers/psychology , Community Pharmacy Services , Pandemics , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Male , Primary Health Care , Public Health , Qualitative Research , SARS-CoV-2 , Safety , United Kingdom
18.
Narrat Inq Bioeth ; 11(1): 95-99, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1337555

ABSTRACT

This commentary discusses twelve stories in which people who are involved in institutional review board (IRB) administration or serve as IRB members tell the stories of how the COVID-19 pandemic affected their work and lives. Among the aspects of these stories it highlights are the need to focus on the well-being of the institution's employees, and how issues involving protecting vulnerable subjects might relate to current policy debates about underserved communities. The final portion of this commentary focuses in particular on how one might measure success for a program in protecting its research subjects during a pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ethics Committees, Research , Occupational Health , Pandemics , Research Subjects , Safety , Humans , Narration , Policy , SARS-CoV-2 , Vulnerable Populations
19.
Narrat Inq Bioeth ; 11(1): 55-59, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1337545

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted and displaced the old normal, necessitating adaptation. The narratives in this issue of NIB give us a glimpse into the experience of conducting research during a pandemic. The authors were on a mission to pursue research despite the challenges the pandemic imposed. They described difficulties of the Institutional Review Board process and the necessity of asking for accelerated IRB approval. The authors also discussed challenges they faced with research participant recruitment during a pandemic and concerns about keeping staff safe from the risk of transmission. The authors adapted and adjusted to the personal and professional restraints the COVID-19 pandemic placed upon them. Despite these difficulties, the authors remained committed to maintaining the integrity of their research.


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Pandemics , Research Personnel , Biomedical Research/ethics , Ethics Committees, Research , Ethics, Research , Humans , Narration , Patient Selection , SARS-CoV-2 , Safety
20.
Neurogastroenterol Motil ; 32(9): e13935, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1329021
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...