Search

Over the past few decades, a small but growing group of people have worked remotely from their homes. With the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic, millions of people found themselves joining this group overnight. In this position paper, we examine the kinds of work that 'went remote' in response to the pandemic, and consider the ways in which this transition was influenced by (and in turn came to influence) contemporary trends in digital workplace measurement and evaluation. We see that employers appeared reluctant to let certain classes of employee work remotely. When the pandemic forced staff home, employers compensated by turning to digital surveillance tools, even though, as we argue, these tools seem unable to overcome the significant conceptual barriers to understanding how people are working. We also observed that, in the United Kingdom context, the pandemic didn't mean remote work for a significant proportion of the population. We assert that, to maximize its impact, 'future of work' research in human-centred computing must be more inclusive and representative of work, rather than focusing on the experiences of knowledge workers and those involved in new forms of work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background COVID-19 brought additional challenges to Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decision-making, which was already a contentious issue. In the UK, reports of poor DNACPR decision-making and communication emerged in 2020, including from the regulator, the Care Quality Commission. This paper explores the experiences of people who discussed DNACPR with a healthcare professional on behalf of a relative during the coronavirus pandemic, with the aim of identifying areas of good practice and what needs to be improved. Methods a total of 39 people participated in semi-structured interviews via video conferencing software or telephone. Data were evaluated using Framework Analysis. Findings results are presented around three main themes: understanding, communication and impact. Participants' understanding about DNACPR was important, as those with better understanding tended to reflect more positively on their discussions with clinicians. The role of relatives in the decision-making process was a frequent source of misunderstanding. Healthcare professionals' communication skills were important. Where discussions went well, relatives were given clear explanations and the opportunity to ask questions. However many relatives felt that conversations were rushed. DNACPR discussions can have a lasting impact—relatives reported them to be significant moments in care journeys. Many relatives perceived that they were asked to decide whether their relative should receive CPR and described enduring emotional consequences, including guilt. Conclusion the pandemic has illuminated deficiencies in current practice around DNACPR discussion, which can have difficult to anticipate and lasting negative consequences for relatives. This research raises questions about the current approach to DNACPR decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current COVID-19 pandemic confines people to their homes, disrupting the fragile social fabric of deprived neighbourhoods and citizen's participation options. In deprived neighbourhoods, community engagement is central in building community resilience, an important resource for health and a prerequisite for effective health promotion programmes. It provides access to vulnerable groups and helps understand experiences, assets, needs and problems of citizens. Most importantly, community activities, including social support, primary care or improving urban space, enhance health through empowerment, strengthened social networks, mutual respect and providing a sense of purpose and meaning. In the context of inequalities associated with COVID-19, these aspects are crucial for citizens of deprived neighbourhoods who often feel their needs and priorities are ignored. In this perspectives paper, illustrated by a varied overview of community actions in the UK and The Netherlands, we demonstrate how citizens, communities and organizations may build resilience and community power. Based on in-depth discussion among the authors we distilled six features of community actions: increase in mutual aid and neighbourhood ties, the central role of community-based organizations (CBOs), changing patterns of volunteering, use of digital media and health promotion opportunities. We argue that in order to enable and sustain resilient and confident, 'disaster-proof', communities, areas which merit investment include supporting active citizens, new (digital) ways of community engagement, transforming formal organizations, alignment with the (local) context and applying knowledge in the field of health promotion in new ways, focussing on learning and co-creation with citizen initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the first wave of COVID-19, the UK Government relied heavily on digital channels to provide information to the public. This disproportionately excluded older people - one of the groups with least access to (or experience of) using the internet. Approximately 11.5 million people in the UK lack digital skills and 4.8 million people never go online, with around half (51%) of these being aged over 65. The Greater Manchester (GM) response was to work collaboratively with a number of key Ageing groups to develop Keeping Well at Home, a booklet providing evidence based health and wellbeing information and advice for older people during COVID-19 restrictions. Methods: An evaluation of the booklet was undertaken during summer 2020 by the Healthy Ageing team at the Applied Research Collaboration GM. As national restrictions on movement remained in place at the time, a postal questionnaire was distributed to a sample of older adults in GM. Results: Nearly 500 questionnaires were returned. The response was overwhelmingly positive; 92% found the information helpful; 90% agreed the booklet would help older people stay healthy during lockdown; 74% had used the home exercises section; 78% found the tips for keeping their mind well helpful. Around 50% of respondents did not have internet access. Paper based resources was the preferred choice for 92% of respondents with only 6% opting for digital versions. Conclusions: The evidence from the evaluation challenges the growing trend towards communicating just through digital channels, and emphasises the need for tailored paper-based materials for older adults. The Keeping Well at Home booklet also shows the value of working with older adults to ensure the content and design are inviting to readers. Information, support and services must be made available in an offline equivalent and proactively disseminated to reach those who otherwise would not have access to it. Key messages: Print-based communications are preferred over digital for some groups; ensuring inclusivity is critical as the ‘digital by default’ approach excludes large numbers of our population. Including target group representatives as co-editors to advise on content and stylistic design is key to ensure content is relevant and useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]