Dataset Information

Research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science.

ABSTRACT: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) that has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represents the greatest international biopsychosocial emergency the world has faced for a century, and psychological science has an integral role to offer in helping societies recover. The aim of this paper is to set out the shorter- and longer-term priorities for research in psychological science that will (a) frame the breadth and scope of potential contributions from across the discipline; (b) enable researchers to focus their resources on gaps in knowledge; and (c) help funders and policymakers make informed decisions about future research priorities in order to best meet the needs of societies as they emerge from the acute phase of the pandemic. The research priorities were informed by an expert panel convened by the British Psychological Society that reflects the breadth of the discipline; a wider advisory panel with international input; and a survey of 539 psychological scientists conducted early in May 2020. The most pressing need is to research the negative biopsychosocial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to facilitate immediate and longer-term recovery, not only in relation to mental health, but also in relation to behaviour change and adherence, work, education, children and families, physical health and the brain, and social cohesion and connectedness. We call on psychological scientists to work collaboratively with other scientists and stakeholders, establish consortia, and develop innovative research methods while maintaining high-quality, open, and rigorous research standards.

SUBMITTER: O'Connor DB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7404603 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science.

O'Connor Daryl B DB Aggleton John P JP Chakrabarti Bhismadev B Cooper Cary L CL Creswell Cathy C Dunsmuir Sandra S Fiske Susan T ST Gathercole Susan S Gough Brendan B Ireland Jane L JL Jones Marc V MV Jowett Adam A Kagan Carolyn C Karanika-Murray Maria M Kaye Linda K LK Kumari Veena V Lewandowsky Stephan S Lightman Stafford S Malpass Debra D Meins Elizabeth E Morgan B Paul BP Morrison Coulthard Lisa J LJ Reicher Stephen D SD Schacter Daniel L DL Sherman Susan M SM Simms Victoria V Williams Antony A Wykes Til T Armitage Christopher J CJ

British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) 20200719 4

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) that has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represents the greatest international biopsychosocial emergency the world has faced for a century, and psychological science has an integral role to offer in helping societies recover. The aim of this paper is to set out the shorter- and longer-term priorities for research in psychological science that will (a) frame the breadth and scope of potential contributions fr ...[more]

PMID: 32683689

Similar Datasets

Project description:The long-term physical and mental sequelae of COVID-19 are a growing public health concern, yet there is considerable uncertainty about their prevalence, persistence and predictors. We conducted a comprehensive, up-to-date meta-analysis of survivors' health consequences and sequelae for COVID-19. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched through Sep 30th, 2021. Observational studies that reported the prevalence of sequelae of COVID-19 were included. Two reviewers independently undertook the data extraction and quality assessment. Of the 36,625 records identified, a total of 151 studies were included involving 1,285,407 participants from thirty-two countries. At least one sequelae symptom occurred in 50.1% (95% CI 45.4-54.8) of COVID-19 survivors for up to 12 months after infection. The most common investigation findings included abnormalities on lung CT (56.9%, 95% CI 46.2-67.3) and abnormal pulmonary function tests (45.6%, 95% CI 36.3-55.0), followed by generalized symptoms, such as fatigue (28.7%, 95% CI 21.0-37.0), psychiatric symptoms (19.7%, 95% CI 16.1-23.6) mainly depression (18.3%, 95% CI 13.3-23.8) and PTSD (17.9%, 95% CI 11.6-25.3), and neurological symptoms (18.7%, 95% CI 16.2-21.4), such as cognitive deficits (19.7%, 95% CI 8.8-33.4) and memory impairment (17.5%, 95% CI 8.1-29.6). Subgroup analysis showed that participants with a higher risk of long-term sequelae were older, mostly male, living in a high-income country, with more severe status at acute infection. Individuals with severe infection suffered more from PTSD, sleep disturbance, cognitive deficits, concentration impairment, and gustatory dysfunction. Survivors with mild infection had high burden of anxiety and memory impairment after recovery. Our findings suggest that after recovery from acute COVID-19, half of survivors still have a high burden of either physical or mental sequelae up to at least 12 months. It is important to provide urgent and appropriate prevention and intervention management to preclude persistent or emerging long-term sequelae and to promote the physical and psychiatric wellbeing of COVID-19 survivors.

Project description:Operational research (OR) is the discipline of using models, either quantitative or qualitative, to aid decision-making in complex implementation problems. The methods of OR have been used in healthcare since the 1950s in diverse areas such as emergency medicine and the interface between acute and community care; hospital performance; scheduling and management of patient home visits; scheduling of patient appointments; and many other complex implementation problems of an operational or logistical nature.To date, there has been limited debate about the role that operational research should take within implementation science. I detail three such roles for OR all grounded in upfront system thinking: structuring implementation problems, prospective evaluation of improvement interventions, and strategic reconfiguration. Case studies from mental health, emergency medicine, and stroke care are used to illustrate each role. I then describe the challenges for applied OR within implementation science at the organisational, interventional, and disciplinary levels. Two key challenges include the difficulty faced in achieving a position of mutual understanding between implementation scientists and research users and a stark lack of evaluation of OR interventions. To address these challenges, I propose a research agenda to evaluate applied OR through the lens of implementation science, the liberation of OR from the specialist research and consultancy environment, and co-design of models with service users. Operational research is a mature discipline that has developed a significant volume of methodology to improve health services. OR offers implementation scientists the opportunity to do more upfront system thinking before committing resources or taking risks. OR has three roles within implementation science: structuring an implementation problem, prospective evaluation of implementation problems, and a tool for strategic reconfiguration of health services. Challenges facing OR as implementation science include limited evidence and evaluation of impact, limited service user involvement, a lack of managerial awareness, effective communication between research users and OR modellers, and availability of healthcare data. To progress the science, a focus is needed in three key areas: evaluation of OR interventions, embedding the knowledge of OR in health services, and educating OR modellers about the aims and benefits of service user involvement.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify research priorities for primary care in Scotland following the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignModified James Lind Alliance methodology; respondents completed an online survey to make research suggestions and rank research themes in order of priority.SettingScotland primary care.ParticipantsHealthcare professionals in primary care in Scotland and members of primary care patient and public involvement groups. 512 respondents provided research suggestions; 8% (n=40) did not work in health or social care; of those who did work, 68.8% worked in primary care, 16.3% community care, 11.7% secondary care, 4.5% third sector, 4.2% university (respondents could select multiple options). Of those respondents who identified as healthcare professionals, 33% were in nursing and midwifery professions, 25% were in allied health professions (of whom 45% were occupational therapists and 35% were physiotherapists), 20% were in the medical profession and 10% were in the pharmacy profession.Main outcomesSuggestions for research for primary care made by respondents were categorised into themes and subthemes by researchers and ranked in order of priority by respondents.ResultsThere were 1274 research suggestions which were categorised under 12 themes and 30 subthemes. The following five themes received the most suggestions for research: disease and illness (n=461 suggestions), access (n=202), workforce (n=164), multidisciplinary team (MDT; n=143) and integration (n=108). One hundred and three (20%) respondents to the survey participated in ranking the list of 12 themes in order of research priority. The five most highly ranked research priorities were disease and illness, health inequalities, access, workforce and MDTs. The disease and illness theme had the greatest number of suggestions for research and was scored the most highly in the ranking exercise. The subtheme ranked as the most important research priority in the disease and illness theme was 'mental health'.ConclusionsThe themes and subthemes identified in this study should inform research funders so that the direction of primary healthcare is informed by evidence.

Project description:BackgroundIn several recent articles, authors have called for aligning the fields of implementation and improvement science. In this paper, we call for implementation science to also align with improvement practice. Multiple implementation scholars have highlighted the importance of designing implementation strategies to fit the existing culture, infrastructure, and practice of a healthcare system. Worldwide, healthcare systems are adopting improvement models as their primary approach to improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. The prevalence of improvement models raises the question of how implementation scientists might best align their efforts with healthcare systems' existing improvement infrastructure and practice.Main bodyWe describe three challenges and five benefits to aligning implementation science and improvement practice. Challenges include (1) use of different models, terminology, and methods, (2) a focus on generalizable versus local knowledge, and (3) limited evidence in support of the effectiveness of improvement tools and methods. We contend that implementation science needs to move beyond these challenges and work toward greater alignment with improvement practice. Aligning with improvement practice would benefit implementation science by (1) strengthening research/practice partnerships, (2) fostering local ownership of implementation, (3) generating practice-based evidence, (4) developing context-specific implementation strategies, and (5) building practice-level capacity to implement interventions and improve care. Each of these potential benefits is illustrated in a case study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network.ConclusionTo effectively integrate evidence-based interventions into routine practice, implementation scientists need to align their efforts with the improvement culture and practice that is driving change within healthcare systems worldwide. This paper provides concrete examples of how researchers have aligned implementation science with improvement practice across five implementation projects.

Dataset Information

Research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science.

Publications

Research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets