ABSTRACT
The objective of this paper is to provide insights into our experiences undertaking qualitative rapid research in Latin American contexts based on fieldwork from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. We focus on the insights and learning processes that emerged from our research teamwork during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our research projects are part of an international collaboration led by the Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL) to explore the experiences of COVID-19 Frontline Healthcare Workers. The analyzed experiences not only rely on the local studies but also on our reflections as a group of Latin American researchers collaborating along with an international team. Qualitative research has an important and long-lasting tradition in Latin America. However, healthcare professionals are still reluctant to use these methods. We highlight tensions and dilemmas that have emerged from our own empirical experience: First, the time for research ethics committees to evaluate the protocols; second, the difficulties in accessing funding to undertake research due to the lack of financial opportunities; third, having to decide the language of our publications. That is just the tip of the iceberg that allows us to show inequalities in the conditions under which scientific knowledge is produced between the North and the Global South. Following these points, our text explores the tension between the urgency to conduct rapid research and the multiple difficulties when undertaking it during the pandemic. It is important to point out that the problems we faced already existed before the sanitary emergency, being magnified by the former. At last, our conclusions delve into the reflexive process we, as a team of female researchers, undertook to explore the differences and similarities of our experiences. This analysis allowed us to solve obstacles and dilemmas when doing research. The winding road we describe here serves as an example for other research teams when planning and undertaking rapid qualitative research during future pandemics.
ABSTRACT
El personal de salud que trabajó en los hospitales COVID-19, durante los primeros meses de la pandemia, experimentó largas jornadas de trabajo, desconocimiento, incertidumbre y miedo. Objetivo: El objetivo fue explorar las experiencias del personal de salud que trabajó en hospitales públicos de Ciudad de México, durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Materiales y métodos: Realizamos una investigación cualitativa rápida a través de entrevistas semiestructuradas virtuales (n=30) al personal de primera línea entre mayo y septiembre del 2020. Fue un proceso iterativo de recolección y análisis, codificamos el material y después construimos temas que revisamos en una matriz. Resultados: Presentamos tres temas principales: 1) Miedo al virus: la incertidumbre, la muerte y la preocupación por la familia, fueron una constante. 2) Las acciones realizadas para contención: las personas que experimentaron el programa de apoyo en "Los Pinos" lo vivieron como un programa exitoso y positivo. 3) La atención de su salud mental: el personal de salud vivió falta de atención a la salud mental y la dificultad para utilizar la existente. Conclusiones: Dadas las condiciones, el día a día era compartir y tratar de comprender las emociones entre los equipos, apoyándose entre sí dadas las experiencias difíciles que se vivían. Este estudio se corresponde con otros en México y el mundo que refleja la necesidad de planear y tener normativas claras y no reactivas, así poder disminuir los miedos y la incertidumbre(AU)
Health workers in Mexico City during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced long working hours, ignorance, uncertainty, and fear. Objective, material, and methods: To explore the experiences of health personnel who worked in public hospitals in Mexico City during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted rapid qualitative research through virtual semi-structured interviews (n=30) with frontline staff between May and September 2020. This research was an iterative process of data collection and analysis. We codified the material and then built themes that we reviewed in a matrix. Results: We presented three main themes: 1) Fear of the virus: uncertainty, death, and concern for their families, were a constant for participants. 2) The actions conducted for containment: the people who experienced the support program in "Los Pinos" experienced it as a successful and positive program. 3) Mental health care: the health personnel experienced a lack of attention to their mental health and difficulties to use the existing one. Conclusions: Given the conditions, the day-today was to share and try to understand the emotions among the teams, supporting each other given the difficult experiences that they were living. This study corresponds to others in Mexico and worldwide, showing the need to plan and have clear and non-reactive regulations, to reduce fears and uncertainty(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Health Personnel , Mental Health Assistance , COVID-19/epidemiology , Anxiety , Burnout, Professional , Qualitative Research , Depression , Hospitals, Public , Mexico , Occupational GroupsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Global Health Education (GHE) focuses on training proactive global citizens to tackle health challenges in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world. Studies show that health professionals in training have reported that GHE has improved their teamwork, responsiveness to contextual factors that impact health, and understanding of health systems; however, there is little research on the impact of GHE courses in undergraduate settings, especially in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Our study analyzes a multidisciplinary online global health course at Tecnologico de Monterrey, México. We conducted a cross-sectional study with pre- and post-design. Students who took the multidisciplinary course of Global Health for Leaders in the Fall of 2019 (n = 153) and Spring of 2020 (n = 348) were selected for this study. Using a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree), the survey assessed seven competencies as well as questions about course expectations, takeaways, and recommendations to improve the course. We performed descriptive statistical analyses comparing the combined pre-tests (from Fall and Spring cohorts) to the combined post-tests. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the samples. RESULTS: Of the 501 pre-course surveys administered, 456 responses were completed in the pre-course and 435 in the post-course (91% overall response rate). Only 8.7% of the respondents in the pre-course survey strongly agreed that they could describe fundamental aspects of global health such as the Millennium Development Goals or Sustainable Development Goals, in contrast to a 56% of the students who strongly agreed in the post-course survey (p < 0.001). Similar differences were captured in understanding the global burden of disease, social determinants of health, the effects of globalization in health, health systems' goals and functions, and human rights. 38% felt that the course helped them develop a more empathetic perception of the suffering of others experiencing global health-related issues. CONCLUSION: In this study, we have presented our experience in teaching an online global health course for multidisciplinary undergraduates in a LMIC. The competencies reported by our students indicate that the course prepared them to confront complex global health issues.
