Search

We investigated the relationship between individual-level social vulnerability and place of death during the infectious disease emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts. Our research represents a unique contribution by matching individual-level death certificates with COVID-19 test data to analyse differences in distributions of place of death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Infectious disease emergencies are increasingly becoming part of the health care delivery landscape, having implications to not only individuals and the public, but also on those expected to respond to these emergencies. Health care workers (HCWs) are perhaps the most important asset in an infectious disease emergency, yet these individuals have their own barriers and facilitators to them being willing or able to respond.Aim: The purpose of this review was to identify factors affecting HCW willingness to respond (WTR) to duty during infectious disease outbreaks and/or bioterrorist events.Methods: An integrative literature review methodology was utilized to conduct a structured search of the literature including CINAHL, Medline, Embase, and PubMed databases using key terms and phrases. PRISMA guidelines were used to report the search outcomes and all eligible literature was screened with those included in the final review collated and appraised using a quality assessment tool.Results: A total of 149 papers were identified from the database search. Forty papers were relevant following screening, which highlighted facilitators of WTR to include: availability of personal protective equipment (PPE)/vaccine, level of training, professional ethics, family and personal safety, and worker support systems. A number of barriers were reported to prevent WTR for HCWs, such as: concern and perceived risk, interpersonal factors, job-level factors, and outbreak characteristics.Conclusions: By comprehensively identifying the facilitators and barriers to HCWs' WTR during infectious disease outbreaks and/or bioterrorist events, strategies can be identified and implemented to improve WTR and thus improve HCW and public safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia’s Indigenous peoples account for 3% of the country’s population yet continue to experience disproportionately higher rates of mortality and hospitalization for many infectious diseases.1 The 2009 influenza pandemic had an inequitable impact on Indigenous peoples in Australia,2 New Zealand,3 the Americas and the Pacific.4 Genuine and tangible actions that include Indigenous peoples in the planning and response for pandemic influenza is overdue. This paper will identify some of the strategies to incorporate the perspectives of Australia’s Indigenous peoples (hereafter Aboriginal) in planning and responding to infectious disease emergencies.

Aims: Enhanced data collection during infectious disease emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, must inform the clinical and public health responses appropriate for Australian First Nations populations. To inform the design of such data collection protocols, we systematically reviewed the reported outcomes for the First Nations population related to A(H1N1) 2009 pandemic influenza infection. Methods: We searched PubMed and Google using the search terms: pandemic AND Australia AND 2009 AND (Indigenous OR Aboriginal OR “Torres Strait”). Data extracted included: location; study design; data source(s), number of study participants and the number and percentage that were First Nations; completeness of First Nations status; and reported outcomes (stratified by First Nations status). Each study was also reviewed for documentation of engagement or consultation with First Nation individuals, communities or health services regarding the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting. Results: Our search identified 53 citations, with 13 deemed eligible for inclusion. Most studies were case-series (n=6) and used primary data (n=8) and/or secondary data (n=10). The number of First Nations participants ranged from 13 to 3,966. The proportion of First Nations participants per study varied from 1.8% to 100%. Completeness of reporting First Nations status ranged from 62% to 100%. Reported outcomes stratified by First Nations status included notification rate (n=3), comorbidities/risk factors (n=4), severity of disease (hospital admission (n=8), intensive care unit admission (n=8), death (n=5)) and interventions (anti-viral use (n=2) and vaccination (n=4)). There were no studies that described engagement/consultation with First Nations individuals, communities or health services regarding any aspect of the study process. Conclusion: Studies identified in this review mostly used secondary data and reported on outcomes relating to severity, and comorbidities and other risk factors. Studies specifically designed for First Nations populations are required to fully understand the contributing factors for the frequency and severity of disease in an infectious disease emergency and inform appropriate responses. First Nations communities and health services need to be adequately engaged and participate in the design, implementation, analysis and reporting of such enhanced data collection studies.