Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on fractures in health care systems worldwide and continues to have a significant impact, particularly in relation to the health care workforce. Frontline staff have been exposed to unprecedented strain, and delivering care during the pandemic has affected their safety, mental health, and well-being., Objective: This study aimed to explore the experiences of health care workers (HCWs) delivering care in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand their well-being needs, experiences, and strategies used to maintain well-being (at individual and organizational levels)., Methods: We analyzed 94 telephone interviews with HCWs and 2000 tweets about HCWs' mental health during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: The results were grouped under 6 themes: redeployment, clinical work, and sense of duty; well-being support and HCW's coping strategies; negative mental health effects; organizational support; social network and support; and public and government support., Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the need for open conversations, where staff's well-being needs and the strategies they adopted can be shared and encouraged, rather than implementing top-down psychological interventions alone. At the macro level, the findings also highlighted the impact on HCW's well-being of public and government support as well as the need to ensure protection through personal protective equipment, testing, and vaccines for frontline workers., (©Norha Vera San Juan, Sam Martin, Anna Badley, Laura Maio, Petra C Gronholm, Caroline Buck, Elaine C Flores, Samantha Vanderslott, Aron Syversen, Sophie Mulcahy Symmons, Inayah Uddin, Amelia Karia, Syka Iqbal, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 14.08.2023.)

Background: COVID-19 has challenged health services throughout the world in terms of hospital capacity and put staff and vulnerable populations at risk of infection. In the face of these challenges, many health providers have implemented remote patient monitoring (RPM) of COVID-19 patients in their own homes. However systematic reviews of the literature on these implementations have revealed wide variations in how RPM is implemented; along with variations in particulars of RPM reported on, making comparison and evaluation difficult. A review of reported items is warranted to develop a framework of key items to enhance reporting consistency. The aims of this review of remote monitoring for COVID-19 patients are twofold: (1) to facilitate comparison between RPM implementations by tabulating information and values under common domains. (2) to develop a reporting framework to enhance reporting consistency., Method: A review of the literature for RPM for COVID-19 patients was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The Medline database was searched for articles published between 2020 to February 2023 and studies reporting on items with sufficient detail to compare one with another were included. Relevant data was extracted and synthesized by the lead author. Quality appraisal was not conducted as the the articles considered were evaluated as informational reports of clinical implementations rather than as studies designed to answer a research question., Results: From 305 studies retrieved, 23 studies were included in the review: fourteen from the US, two from the UK and one each from Africa, Ireland, China, the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia and Italy. Sixteen generally reported items were identified, shown with the percentage of studies reporting in brackets: Reporting Period (82%), Rationale (100%), Patients (100%), Medical Team (91%) Provider / Infrastructure (91%), Communications Platform (100%), Patient Equipment (100%), Training (48%), Markers (96%), Frequency of prompt / Input (96%),Thresholds (82%), Discharge (61%), Enrolled (96%), Alerts/Escalated (78%), Patient acceptance (43%), and Patient Adherence (52%). Whilst some studies reported on patient training and acceptance, just one reported on staff training and none on staff acceptance., Conclusions: Variations in reported items were found. Pending the establishment of a robust set of reporting guidelines, we propose a reporting framework consisting of eighteen reporting items under the following four domains: Context, Technology, Process and Metrics., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Social scientists have a robust history of contributing to better understandings of and responses to disease outbreaks. The implementation of qualitative research in the context of infectious epidemics, however, continues to lag behind in the delivery, credibility, and timeliness of findings when compared with other research designs. The purpose of this article is to reflect on our experience of carrying out three research studies (a rapid appraisal, a qualitative study based on interviews, and a mixed-methods survey) aimed at exploring health care delivery in the context of COVID-19. We highlight the importance of qualitative data to inform evidence-based public health responses and provide a way forward to global research teams who wish to implement similar rapid qualitative studies. We reflect on the challenges of setting up research teams, obtaining ethical approval, collecting and analyzing data in real-time and sharing actionable findings.