Dataset Information

Global academic response to COVID-19: Cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: This study explores the response to COVID-19 from investigators, editors, and publishers and seeks to define challenges during the early stages of the pandemic. A cross-sectional bibliometric review of COVID-19 literature was undertaken between 1 November 2019 and 24 March 2020, along with a comparative review of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) literature. Investigator responsiveness was assessed by measuring the volume and type of research published. Editorial responsiveness was assessed by measuring the submission-to-acceptance time and availability of original data. Publisher-responsiveness was assessed by measuring the acceptance-to-publication time and the provision of open access. Three hundred and ninety-eight of 2,835 COVID-19 and 55 of 1,513 MERS search results were eligible. Most COVID-19 studies were clinical reports (n = 242; 60.8%). The submission-to-acceptance [median: 5 days (IQR: 3-11) versus 71.5 days (38-106); P < .001] and acceptance-to-publication [median: 5 days (IQR: 2-8) versus 22.5 days (4-48·5-; P < .001] times were strikingly shorter for COVID-19. Almost all COVID-19 (n = 396; 99.5%) and MERS (n = 55; 100%) studies were open-access. Data sharing was infrequent, with original data available for 104 (26.1%) COVID-19 and 10 (18.2%) MERS studies (P = .203). The early academic response was characterized by investigators aiming to define the disease. Studies were made rapidly and openly available. Only one-in-four were published alongside original data, which is a key target for improvement.

Key points

COVID-19 publications show rapid response from investigators, specifically aiming to define the disease.Median time between submission and acceptance of COVID-19 articles is 5 days demonstrating rapid decision-making compared with the median of 71.5 days for MERS articles.Median time from acceptance to publication of COVID-19 articles is 5 days, confirming the ability to introduce rapid increases at times of crisis, such as during the SARS outbreak.The majority of both COVID-19 and MERS articles are available open-access.

SUBMITTER: Helliwell JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7362145 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global academic response to COVID-19: Cross-sectional study.

Helliwell Jack A JA Bolton William S WS Burke Joshua R JR Tiernan Jim P JP Jayne David G DG Jayne David G DG Chapman Stephen J SJ

Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers 20200701 4

This study explores the response to COVID-19 from investigators, editors, and publishers and seeks to define challenges during the early stages of the pandemic. A cross-sectional bibliometric review of COVID-19 literature was undertaken between 1 November 2019 and 24 March 2020, along with a comparative review of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) literature. Investigator responsiveness was assessed by measuring the volume and type of research published. Editorial responsiveness was assesse ...[more]

PMID: 32836910

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs the number of COVID-19 cases increased precipitously in the United States, policy makers and health officials marshalled their pandemic responses. As the economic impacts multiplied, anecdotal reports noted the increased use of web-based crowdfunding to defray these costs.ObjectiveWe examined the web-based crowdfunding response in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States to understand the incidence of initiation of COVID-19-related campaigns and compare them to non-COVID-19-related campaigns.MethodsOn May 16, 2020, we extracted all available data available on US campaigns that contained narratives and were created between January 1 and May 10, 2020, on GoFundMe. We identified the subset of COVID-19-related campaigns using keywords relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic. We explored the incidence of COVID-19-related campaigns by geography, by category, and over time, and we compared the characteristics of the campaigns to those of non-COVID-19-related campaigns after March 11, when the pandemic was declared. We then used a natural language processing algorithm to cluster campaigns by narrative content using overlapping keywords.ResultsWe found that there was a substantial increase in overall GoFundMe web-based crowdfunding campaigns in March, largely attributable to COVID-19-related campaigns. However, as the COVID-19 pandemic persisted and progressed, the number of campaigns per COVID-19 case declined more than tenfold across all states. The states with the earliest disease burden had the fewest campaigns per case, indicating a lack of a case-dependent response. COVID-19-related campaigns raised more money, had a longer narrative description, and were more likely to be shared on Facebook than other campaigns in the study period.ConclusionsWeb-based crowdfunding appears to be a stopgap for only a minority of campaigners. The novelty of an emergency likely impacts both campaign initiation and crowdfunding success, as it reflects the affective response of a community. Crowdfunding activity likely serves as an early signal for emerging needs and societal sentiment for communities in acute distress that could be used by governments and aid organizations to guide disaster relief and policy.

Project description:IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination generates protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection. There is no clear evidence of COVID-19 vaccine-induced menstrual irregularities.ObjectiveTo identify potential menstrual irregularities following COVID-19 vaccine among females.MethodsA worldwide cross-sectional survey study was conducted from June 10, 2021, to July 10, 2021 using online mediums. The survey consisted of 15 questions divided into baseline characteristics, vaccination status and dosage, menstruation and relate factors, and thoughts and knowledge about menstrual irregularities. Non-probability convenience sampling method was used including 510 responses. The results were tabulated, with bivariate analysis and chi-square test results. The sensitivity and specificity test of factors associated to knowledge about menstrual irregularities post COVID-19 vaccination were analyzed by receiver operating characteristic analysis.ResultsThe associations between healthcare worker (HCW) status and perceptions (χ2 = 10.422; p = 0.064), and knowledge about menstrual irregularities post-vaccination (χ2 = 1.966; p = 0.161) were found. Vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated women had a higher risk of change in inter-cycle length between periods (OR = 3.172; 95% CI = 0.470-21.431). Of 314 HCW vs. 196 non-HCW, 60 (19.1%) vs. 28 (14.3%) were knowledgeable about menstrual irregularities (OR = 1.338, 95% CI = 0.886-2.019 vs. OR = 0.944; 95% CI = 0.873-1.021). On asking the HCW vs. non-HCW about perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine-induced menstrual irregularities, 24 (7.6%) vs. 9 (4.6%) agreed, 139 (44.3%) vs. 67 (34.2%) disagreed, and 151 (48.1%) vs. 120 (61.2%) did not know or chose not applicable.ConclusionThere is a gap in the current understanding of menstrual irregularities, even if temporary, following COVID-19 vaccination that requires further exploration. Misinformation may also be the culprit for the observed proportion of women that noticed changes in their menstrual periods after COVID-19 vaccination.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough mortality due to COVID-19 has been reportedly low among children with cancer, changes in health-care services due to the pandemic have affected cancer care delivery. This study aimed to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on childhood cancer care worldwide.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was distributed to paediatric oncology providers worldwide from June 22 to Aug 21, 2020, through the St Jude Global Alliance and International Society for Paediatric Oncology listservs and regional networks. The survey included 60 questions to assess institution characteristics, the number of patients diagnosed with COVID-19, disruptions to cancer care (eg, service closures and treatment abandonment), adaptations to care, and resources (including availability of clinical staff and personal protective equipment). Surveys were included for analysis if respondents answered at least two thirds of the items, and the responses were analysed at the institutional level.FindingsResponses from 311 health-care professionals at 213 institutions in 79 countries from all WHO regions were included in the analysis. 187 (88%) of 213 centres had the capacity to test for SARS-CoV-2 and a median of two (range 0-350) infections per institutution were reported in children with cancer. 15 (7%) centres reported complete closure of paediatric haematology-oncology services (median 10 days, range 1-75 days). Overall, 2% (5 of 213) of centres were no longer evaluating new cases of suspected cancer, while 43% (90 of 208) of the remaining centers described a decrease in newly diagnosed paediatric cancer cases. 73 (34%) centres reported increased treatment abandonment (ie, failure to initiate cancer therapy or a delay in care of 4 weeks or longer). Changes to cancer care delivery included: reduced surgical care (153 [72%]), blood product shortages (127 [60%]), chemotherapy modifications (121 [57%]), and interruptions to radiotherapy (43 [28%] of 155 institutions that provided radiotherapy before the pandemic). The decreased number of new cancer diagnoses did not vary based on country income status (p=0·14). However, unavailability of chemotherapy agents (p=0·022), treatment abandonment (p<0·0001), and interruptions in radiotherapy (p<0·0001) were more frequent in low-income and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. These findings did not vary based on institutional or national numbers of COVID-19 cases. Hospitals reported using new or adapted checklists (146 [69%] of 213), processes for communication with patients and families (134 [63%]), and guidelines for essential services (119 [56%]) as a result of the pandemic.InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic has considerably affected paediatric oncology services worldwide, posing substantial disruptions to cancer diagnosis and management, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. This study emphasises the urgency of an equitably distributed robust global response to support paediatric oncology care during this pandemic and future public health emergencies.FundingAmerican Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities.TranslationFor the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Project description:Background"The impacts of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the shutdown it triggered at universities across the world, led to a great degree of social isolation among university staff and students. The aim of this study was to identify the perceived consequences of this on staff and their work and on students and their studies at universities.MethodThe study used a variety of methods, which involved an on-line survey on the influences of social isolation using a non-probability sampling. More specifically, two techniques were used, namely a convenience sampling (i.e. involving members of the academic community, which are easy to reach by the study team), supported by a snow ball sampling (recruiting respondents among acquaintances of the participants). A total of 711 questionnaires from 41 countries were received. Descriptive statistics were deployed to analyse trends and to identify socio-demographic differences. Inferential statistics were used to assess significant differences among the geographical regions, work areas and other socio-demographic factors related to impacts of social isolation of university staff and students.ResultsThe study reveals that 90% of the respondents have been affected by the shutdown and unable to perform normal work or studies at their institution for between 1 week to 2 months. While 70% of the respondents perceive negative impacts of COVID 19 on their work or studies, more than 60% of them value the additional time that they have had indoors with families and others. .ConclusionsWhile the majority of the respondents agree that they suffered from the lack of social interaction and communication during the social distancing/isolation, there were significant differences in the reactions to the lockdowns between academic staff and students. There are also differences in the degree of influence of some of the problems, when compared across geographical regions. In addition to policy actions that may be deployed, further research on innovative methods of teaching and communication with students is needed in order to allow staff and students to better cope with social isolation in cases of new or recurring pandemics.

Dataset Information

Global academic response to COVID-19: Cross-sectional study.

Key points

Publications

Global academic response to COVID-19: Cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets