Dataset Information

COVID-19 and the academy: opinions and experiences of university-based scientists in the U.S.

ABSTRACT: Much of the available evidence regarding COVID-19 effects on the scientific community in the U.S. is anecdotal and non-representative. We report findings from a based survey of university-based biologists, biochemists, and civil and environmental engineers regarding negative and positive COVID-19 impacts, respondent contributions to addressing the pandemic, and their opinions regarding COVID-19 research policies. The most common negative impact was university closures, cited by 93% of all scientists. Significant subgroup differences emerged, with higher proportions of women, assistant professors, and scientists at institutions located in COVID-19 "hotspot" counties reporting difficulties concentrating on research. Assistant professors additionally reported facing more unanticipated childcare responsibilities. Approximately half of the sample also reported one or more positive COVID-19 impacts, suggesting the importance of developing a better understanding of the complete range of impacts across all fields of science. Regarding COVID-19 relevant public policy, findings suggest divergence of opinion concerning surveillance technologies and the need to alter federal approval processes for new tests and vaccines.

SUBMITTER: Johnson TP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8593394 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Ensuring the safety, health, and overall well-being of animals raised for food is both an ethical obligation and a critical component of providing safe food products. The use of antibiotics for maintaining animal health has come under scrutiny in recent years due to the rise of antibiotic resistance globally. Some U.S. producers, especially in the poultry industry, have responded by eliminating their antibiotic use. The number of animals raised without antibiotics (RWA) is growing in the U.S., but there are concerns that RWA practices might negatively impact animal health and welfare. Therefore, the objective of this study was to survey U.S. veterinarians and producers about their experiences and opinions regarding RWA production. Veterinarians, farmers, ranchers, producers, and other stakeholders involved in raising broilers, turkeys, swine, beef cattle or dairy cattle were surveyed. Of the 565 completed responses received, 442 self-reported as practicing veterinarians or producers. Just over half of respondents reported having past or current experience with RWA programs. The main indicated reasons for raising animals without antibiotics were market driven; switching to RWA production was less commonly made for health-related reasons, such as to reduce antibiotic resistance or to improve animal health and welfare. Although respondents felt that RWA production has negative impacts on animal health and welfare, they overwhelmingly (>70%) indicated that the customer (retailer/restaurant/food service) believes that animal and health welfare will be significantly improved. Veterinarians and producers indicated that RWA programs will increase production costs with questionable effect on meat, egg or dairy consumer demand. Many respondents felt that there are times when the RWA label takes priority over animal health and welfare. Respondents generally felt that there was a need for increased auditing/assessment of animal health and welfare in RWA systems.

Project description:ObjectivesIn March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic. In absence of official recommendations, implementing daily multidisciplinary team (MDT) COVID-19 meetings was urgently needed. Our aim was to describe our initial institutional standard operating procedures for implementing these meetings, and their impact on daily practice.MethodsAll consecutive patients who were hospitalized in our institution due to COVID 19, from March 31 to April 15, 2020, were included. Criteria to be presented at MDT meetings were defined as a proven COVID-19 by PCR or strongly suspected on CT scan, requiring hospitalization and treatment not included in the standard of care. Three investigators identified the patients who met the predefined criteria and compared the treatment and outcomes of patients with predefined criteria that were presented during MDT meeting with those not presented during MDT meeting. COVID-19 MDT meeting implementation and adhesion were also assessed by a hospital medical staff survey.ResultsIn all, 318 patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 were examined in our hospital. Of these, 230 (87%) were hospitalized in a COVID-19 unit, 91 (40%) of whom met predefined MDT meeting criteria. Fifty (55%) patients were presented at a MDT meeting versus 41 (45%) were not. Complementary exploration and inclusion in the CorImmuno cohort were higher in MDT meeting group (respectively 35 vs. 15%, P=0.03 and 80 versus 49%, P=0.0007). Prescription of hydrocortisone hemisuccinate was higher in group of patients not presented during MDT meeting (24 vs. 51%, P=0.007). Almost half of the patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were not presented at MDT meeting, which can be partly explained by technical software issues.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary COVID-19 meetings helped implementing a single standard of care, avoided using treatments that were untested or currently being tested, and facilitated the inclusion of patients in prospective cohorts and therapeutic trials.

Project description:BackgroundNurse bedside shift report (BSR) improves satisfaction, quality and safety. Yet, postimplementation adoption rates remain low in hospitals where BSR has been introduced. Further research is needed to understand what content is most appropriate to discuss during BSR and what facilitators are from the clinical nurses' perspective.AimsIdentify and describe acute care clinical nurses' and nursing supervisors' experiences and opinions regarding: process of BSR, appropriate content for BSR and barriers and facilitators related to implementation of BSR.DesignA phenomenological qualitative study was conducted at an acute care 500 bed, not-for-profit academic medical centre located in the southern United States.MethodsClinical nurses (N = 22) and nursing supervisors (N = 12) from every inpatient division were recruited and interviewed. The data were analysed for relationships, similarities and differences. Themes were then identified by two independent researchers.ResultsFive themes were identified: (a) time constraints and clinical nurse's workflow must be taken into consideration; (b) a modified approach is necessary; (c) process and specific critical content should be individualized so that it is meaningful for all parties involved; (d) specific critical content that should be discussed outside the patient's room; and (e) specific critical content that should be discussed inside the patient's room.ConclusionsOne way to minimize interruptions is to conduct BSR using a modified approach, where a portion of the hand-off occurs inside and outside the patient's room. In addition, this study identified the nurses' preferred location where specific critical topics should be discussed.Relevance to clinical practiceResults from this study should be used to inform the practice BSR so the desired outcomes of patient and family satisfaction, nursing quality and patient safety can be realized. This study should influence future research aimed at identifying strategies for successful implementation and sustained use of BSR. The COREQ checklist was used to write manuscript.

Dataset Information

COVID-19 and the academy: opinions and experiences of university-based scientists in the U.S.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets