Suchergebnisse

PurposeResearch fatigue occurs when an individual or population of interest tires of engaging with research, consequently avoiding further participation. This paper considers research fatigue in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, to identify contributory factors and possible solutions for future post-disaster research.Design/methodology/approachThe authors draw on examples from the literature and their own observations from the recruitment and data collection phases of qualitative and quantitative studies, to provide an overview of possible research fatigue in the current COVID-19 pandemic, with implications for future post-disaster research.FindingsPeople affected by disasters sometimes receive multiple requests for study participation by separate teams who may not necessarily be coordinating their work. Not keeping participants informed of the research process or outcomes can lead to disillusionment. Being overburdened with too many research requests and failing to see any subsequent changes following participation may cause individuals to experience research fatigue.Originality/valueGuidelines for researchers wishing to reduce the occurrence of research fatigue include ensuring greater transparency within research; sharing of results and using oversight or gatekeeper bodies to aid coordination. Failure to restrict the number of times that people are asked to participate in studies risks poor participation rates. This can subsequently affect the quality of information with which to inform policy-makers and protect the health of the public during the COVID-19 pandemic or other public health disasters/emergencies.

OBJECTIVES: Malicious incidents involving chemical agents sometimes trigger high public concern. We aimed to (1) identify levels of emotion, perceived risk and behaviour change with regard to visiting Salisbury, 1 month after three people were poisoned with a nerve agent; and (2) test whether factors including receipt of information, beliefs about personal exposure and trust in government were associated with these outcomes. DESIGN: A cross-sectional telephone survey of a random sample of Salisbury residents. SETTING: Conducted between 5 and 13 April 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 500 residents aged 18 or over. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported anxiety, anger, uncertainty, perceived risk to self and avoidance of Salisbury. RESULTS: Any degree of anxiety, anger and uncertainty was reported by 40.6%, 29.8% and 30.6% of participants, respectively. For the majority, the level of emotion reported was mild. Only 7.0% met the criteria for high anxiety and 5.2% reported feeling any risk to their health, whereas 18.6% reported avoiding Salisbury. Factors associated with avoidance of Salisbury included being female, unable to rule out exposure for oneself or of loved ones, believing the incident was targeted against the general public, and lower trust in the government and responding agencies. Hearing a lot or a little about the recovery support (eg, financial packages), as opposed to nothing at all, and being satisfied with this information were associated with reduced avoidance. CONCLUSIONS: Although the March 2018 Salisbury incident had a relatively modest impact on emotion and risk perception in the community, the number who reported avoiding the city was notable. In this, and in future incidents, assuring people that contamination resulted from a targeted, rather than indiscriminate, incident; demonstrating that contamination is contained within specific areas; improving communication about any financial support; and promoting trust in responding agencies should help provide additional reassurance to the community.

Despite advances in technology and medical science, modern health-based projects are open to systemic failure due to many factors. These include I.T. developer's lack of awareness with regard to end-user needs, poor communication amongst all parties concerned and inappropriate or inadequate tests of the emerging system. Other issues may be external (e.g. political and legal) such as sharing of patient data and issues surrounding consent. The goal of this paper is to take a major health-based European model in current development and explore how it addresses the needs of four institutions in four different countries, and how it will meet their respective needs. The evaluation was designed within a Logic Model, and uses the Framework approach, and Q-Methodology to assess both impact and evaluation. Data will be collected through longitudinal semi-structured interviews and Q-scoring with principal stakeholders and developers at each stage of the project. This approach, recurring interviews with the same key players in the project, will help ensure that there is mutual understanding between I.T. developers and endusers of the system. The final system is meant to provide effective health-based decision support systems for policy makers.

Despite advances in technology and medical science, modern health-based projects are open to systemic failure due to many factors. These include I.T. developer's lack of awareness with regard to end-user needs, poor communication amongst all parties concerned and inappropriate or inadequate tests of the emerging system. Other issues may be external (e.g. political and legal) such as sharing of patient data and issues surrounding consent. The goal of this paper is to take a major health-based European model in current development and explore how it addresses the needs of four institutions in four different countries, and how it will meet their respective needs. The evaluation was designed within a Logic Model, and uses the Framework approach, and Q-Methodology to assess both impact and evaluation. Data will be collected through longitudinal semi-structured interviews and Q-scoring with principal stakeholders and developers at each stage of the project. This approach, recurring interviews with the same key players in the project, will help ensure that there is mutual understanding between I.T. developers and end-users of the system. The final system is meant to provide effective health-based decision support systems for policy makers. This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

BACKGROUND: In some organizations, traumatic events via direct or indirect exposure are routine experiences. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reviews (2005; 2018) of post-traumatic stress disorder management in primary and secondary care did not address early interventions for trauma within emergency response organizations. AIMS: This scoping review was designed to identify research which evaluates the use of early interventions in emergency and other high-risk organizations following exposure to primary or secondary trauma and to report on the effectiveness of the early intervention models in common use. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to examine early interventions for workers exposed to trauma, including emergency response, military, and humanitarian aid. Relevant data were extracted from the included studies and the outcomes were assessed using meta-ethnography. RESULTS: Fifty studies of mixed quality met the inclusion criteria for this review. A synthesis of study outcomes found that early interventions help emergency responders to manage post-incident trauma when they are delivered in a manner that (a) respects distinct organizational culture, (b) is supported by organizations and senior management, and (c) harnesses existing social cohesion and peer support systems within teams. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates that early interventions support emergency responders following exposure to trauma when these are tailored to the needs of the population, are supported by the host organization, and harness existing social cohesion and peer support processes within a team or unit. A number of recommendations for the delivery and evaluation of early interventions for psychological trauma in emergency response organizations were made.