scholarly journals The value of European immigration for high-level UK research and clinical care: cross-sectional study

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mursheda Begum ◽  
Grant Lewison ◽  
Mark Lawler ◽  
Richard Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Royal Society ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Medical Doctors ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Time Periods ◽  
The Uk

Summary Objective The UK’s impending departure (‘Brexit’) from the European Union may lead to restrictions on the immigration of scientists and medical personnel to the UK. We examined how many senior scientists and clinicians were from other countries, particularly from Europe, in two time periods. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting United Kingdom. Participants Individuals who had been elected as Fellows of the Royal Society or of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and UK medical doctors currently practising and listed in the Medical Register for 2015. Main outcome measures Percentages of Fellows of the Royal Society, Fellows of the Academy of Medical Sciences and UK medical doctors by nationality (UK and Irish: UKI, European: EUR and rest of world: RoW) over time. Fellows of the Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences proportions were assessed for two time periods, and doctors over decades of qualification (<1960s to 2010s). Results Percentages of European Fellows of the Royal Society increased from 0.8% (1952–1992) (the year the UK signed the Maastricht treaty) to 4.3% (1993–2015). For Fellows of the Academy of Medical Sciences, percentages increased from 2.6% (pre-1992) to 8.9% (post-1992) (for both, p < 0.001). In the 1970s, only 6% of doctors were trained in the EU; the proportion increased to 11% in the last two decades (also p < 0.001). Europeans replaced South Asians as the main immigrant group. Among these, doctors from the Czech Republic, Greece, Poland and Romania made the largest contribution. Conclusions Any post-Brexit restriction on the ability of the UK to attract European researchers and medical doctors may have serious implications for the UK’s science leadership globally and healthcare provision locally.

scholarly journals Political views of doctors in the UK: a cross-sectional study

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (10) ◽  
pp. 880-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate L Mandeville ◽  
Rose-Marie Satherley ◽  
Jennifer A Hall ◽  
Shailen Sutaria ◽  
Chris Willott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Left Wing ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Political Views ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundLittle is known about the political views of doctors in the UK despite doctors' importance in the functioning of the National Health Service (NHS).MethodsThis is a survey-based, cross-sectional study in which we asked questions about voting behaviour in 2015 and 2017 UK general elections and 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union (EU) (Brexit), and questions relating to recent health policies.Results1172 doctors (45.1% women) from 1295 responded to an online survey. 60.5% described their political views as ‘left-wing’ and 62.2% described themselves as ‘liberal’. 79.4% of respondents voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum compared with 48.1% of voters as a whole (χ2=819.8, p<0.001). 98.6% of respondents agreed that EU nationals working in the NHS should be able to remain in the UK after Brexit. The median score for the impact of Brexit on the NHS on a scale of 0 (worst impact) to 10 (best impact) was 2 (IQR=1–4). Most respondents agreed with the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing in the UK (73.9%), charging patients who are not eligible for NHS treatment for non-urgent care (70.6%) and protecting a portion of national spending for the NHS (87.1%). 65.8% thought there was too much use of NHS-funded private sector provision in their medical practice. Specialty, income and grade were associated with divergent opinions.ConclusionsUK doctors are left-leaning and liberal in general, which is reflected in their opinions on topical health policy issues. Doctors in the UK voted differently from the general electorate in recent polls.

Survey of One-handed Lifting in Manufacturing Industry: A Cross-sectional Study of the BackWorks Study Cohort

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 942-946
Author(s):  
Ruoliang Tang ◽  
Jay M. Kapellusch ◽  
Andrew S. Merryweather ◽  
Matthew S. Thiese ◽  
Kurt T. Hegmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Manufacturing Industry ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Materials Handling ◽  
Manual Materials Handling ◽  
Lost Productivity ◽  
The One

Low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem and a major cause of lost productivity in workplaces. Manual materials handling (MMH) jobs have traditionally been regarded as risk factor for LBP. Compared to two-handed lifting, one-handed lifting has received little attention in both epidemiological and biomechanical research. In addition, one frequent complaint of the revised NIOSH lifting equation (RNLE) has been the lack of capability to directly evaluate one-handed lifting. Modifications have been proposed by the European Union, however their efficacy and influence have not yet been evaluated. This cross-sectional study provided objective survey of the MMH jobs, especially the one-handed lifting performed in manufacturing industry and investigated the outcomes of three proposed methods to address one-handed lifting using RNLE approach. Preliminary results suggest that workers with some one-handed lifting are associated with higher physical exposure. However, the increase was more significant among those who perform primarily one-handed lifting.

scholarly journals A Cross-Sectional Study of Experiences and Attitudes towards Clinical Audit of Farm Animal Veterinary Surgeons in the United Kingdom

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 84
Author(s):  
Katie Waine ◽  
Rachel S. Dean ◽  
Chris Hudson ◽  
Jonathan Huxley ◽  
Marnie L. Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Audit ◽  
Nationwide Survey ◽  
Clinical Work ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Protected Time ◽  
Veterinary Surgeons ◽  
The Uk

Clinical audit is a quality improvement tool used to assess and improve the clinical services provided to patients. This is the first study to investigate the extent to which clinical audit is understood and utilised in farm animal veterinary practice. A cross-sectional study to collect experiences and attitudes of farm animal veterinary surgeons in the UK towards clinical audit was conducted using an online nationwide survey. The survey revealed that whilst just under three-quarters (n = 237/325; 73%) of responding veterinary surgeons had heard of clinical audit, nearly 50% (n = 148/301) had never been involved in a clinical audit of any species. The participants’ knowledge of what a clinical audit was varied substantially, with many respondents reporting not receiving training on clinical audit at the undergraduate or postgraduate level. Respondents that had participated in a clinical audit suggested that protected time away from clinical work was required for the process to be completed successfully. This novel study suggests that clinical audit is undertaken to some extent in farm animal practice and that practitioner perception is that it can bring benefits, but was felt that more resources and support were needed for it to be implemented successfully on a wider scale.

scholarly journals Association between home birth and breast feeding outcomes: a cross-sectional study in 28 125 mother–infant pairs from Ireland and the UK

BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
pp. e010551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Quigley ◽  
Cristina Taut ◽  
Tamara Zigman ◽  
Louise Gallagher ◽  
Harry Campbell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Feeding ◽  
Home Birth ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Uk

scholarly journals A cross-sectional study of all clinicians’ conflict of interest disclosures to NHS hospital employers in England 2015-2016

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e019952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harriet Ruth Feldman ◽  
Nicholas J DeVito ◽  
Jonathan Mendel ◽  
David E Carroll ◽  
Ben Goldacre
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Current System ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Gift ◽  
The Uk

ObjectiveWe set out to document how NHS trusts in the UK record and share disclosures of conflict of interest by their employees.DesignCross-sectional study of responses to a Freedom of Information Act request for Gifts and Hospitality Registers.SettingNHS Trusts (secondary/tertiary care organisations) in England.Participants236 Trusts were contacted, of which 217 responded.Main outcome measuresWe assessed all disclosures for completeness and openness, scoring them for achieving each of five measures of transparency.Results185 Trusts (78%) provided a register. 71 Trusts did not respond within the 28 day time limit required by the FoIA. Most COI registers were incomplete by design, and did not contain the information necessary to assess conflicts of interest. 126/185 (68%) did not record the names of recipients. 47/185 (25%) did not record the cash value of the gift or hospitality. Only 31/185 registers (16%) contained the names of recipients, the names of donors, and the cash amounts received. 18/185 (10%) contained none of: recipient name, donor name, and cash amount. Only 15 Trusts had their disclosure register publicly available online (6%). We generated a transparency index assessing whether each Trust met the following criteria: responded on time; provided a register; had a register with fields identifying donor, recipient, and cash amount; provided a register in a format that allowed further analysis; and had their register publicly available online. Mean attainment was 1.9/5; no NHS trust met all five criteria.ConclusionOverall, recording of employees’ conflicts of interest by NHS trusts is poor. None of the NHS Trusts in England met all transparency criteria. 19 did not respond to our FoIA requests, 51 did not provide a Gifts and Hospitality Register and only 31 of the registers provided contained enough information to assess employees’ conflicts of interest. Despite obligations on healthcare professionals to disclose conflicts of interest, and on organisations to record these, the current system for logging and tracking such disclosures is not functioning adequately. We propose a simple national template for reporting conflicts of interest, modelled on the US ‘Sunshine Act’.

scholarly journals Perception towards Online Classes during COVID-19 among MBBS and BDS Students in a Medical College of Nepal: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (235) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nitasha Sharma ◽  
Chet Kant Bhusal ◽  
Sandip Subedi ◽  
Rajeshwar Reddy Kasarla
Keyword(s):  
Teaching Hospital ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Online Classes ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Dental Surgery ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Medical Colleges

Introduction: Sudden outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic has affected the educational system worldwide, forced the medical colleges to close due to lock down, and disrupted the classroom face-to-face teaching process. As a result, medical colleges shifted to an online mode of teaching. The aim of this study is to find out the perception towards online classes during COVID-19 lockdown period among MBBS and BDS students at a medical college of Nepal. Methods: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study carried out at Universal College of Medical Sciences and Teaching Hospital among first and second year Bachelor in Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery and Bachelor in dental surgery students from 1st June 2020 to 30th August 2020. Ethical approval was taken from Institutional Review Committee of Universal College of Medical Sciences and Teaching Hospital (IRC UCMS, Ref: UCMS/IRC/025/20). Convenient sampling method was used. Semi-structured questionnaire was used. Statistical Package for Social Sciences 22 was used for analysis and frequency and percentage was calculated. Results: One hundred fifty six (73.93%) students were enjoying online learning only to some extent, 135 (63.98%) felt online class not equally effective as face-to-face teaching. The students had disturbance during online classes as internet disturbance 168 (79.60%), and electricity problem 47 (22.3%). Similarly, many students 155 (73.50%) felt external disturbance, headache 26 (12.3%), and eye strain 26 (12.3%). Conclusions: Most of the students suffered from disturbances during online classes probably because of internet and electricity problem. When compulsory to conduct online classes, students felt that not more than three online classes per day should be conducted to avoid eye strain and headache.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document