Nursing Students and Online Learning During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review

Aim: This scoping review paper aimed to overview the published research related to nursing students and online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic over the last year 2020-2021. Methodology: Online Google Scholar Database was searched for articles related to nursing students and online learning during Covid 19 pandemic published between1st June 2020 to 1st June 2021. Results: Initial search with key words “nursing students” found 20300 results, finally 39 articles were selected which meet the eligibility criteria. Majority of the authors (69.23 %) have an academic affiliation, only one single author (11.2 %) with clinical affiliation and those who had both academic and clinical were (28.19 %). Only (5.12 %) study applied any theory or conceptual frame work. The focuses of the studies selected were mainly (33.33 %) perception or attitude, (28.20 %) impact and satisfaction were as (20.52 %) focused on experiences and challenges faced. We could only find (5.12 %) studies those where funded. In the selection of research designs majority (46.15 %) adopted quantitative approach followed by (20.51 %) qualitative approaches and (10.25 %) mixed methods; others (23.07 %) included reports, editorials, reflective articles, opinions. About (94.8 %) studies were done without any collaboration with other disciplines only (5.12 %) studies were multidisciplinary. Conclusion: Nursing teaching faculties swiftly responded to COVID-19 by conducting researches mainly adopting quantitative approaches. Nursing researches need more collaboration and funding.

Abstract 1122‐000243: Capacity and Characteristics of Thrombectomy Centers World‐wide Using the MT2020+ Global Thrombectomy Tracking Smartphone App

Introduction : Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has been established as a first line therapy for large vessel occlusion stroke; however, MT remains underutilized globally with massive disparity in access based on country income level. Mission Thrombectomy 2020+ (MT2020+) is a global alliance and campaign that aims to reduce this disparity and democratize MT access for patients. A novel smartphone application, Global Thrombectomy Tracking App, was designed to characterize thrombectomy centers on a global‐level and numerically track MT cases in near real‐time. Methods : The MT2020 App was launched in November 2019. To gain insight into local systems of care, neurointerventionalists were prompted to participate in an optional 11‐question survey over a 19‐month period. Questions pertained to population density, organizational structure, academic affiliation, available imaging modalities, tPA usage, and case volumes. Results : Of 338 active users from 9 countries, 49‐neurointerventionalists participated in the survey. The majority (71.5%) practiced in large metropolis with population >1‐million, of which 16.3% were in mega‐cities (>10‐million). The centers were government funded (46.9%), private (40.8%) or charitable (12.2%). Most were academic hospitals (81.6%) with neurointerventional trainees (55.1%). At most centers (87.7%), IV‐tPA was available with annual treatment rate >5% for 55.1%. Most centers (57.1%) utilize additional CT perfusion scans prior to MT. For 69.3% respondents, the annual MT case volume was between 10–100 cases. Conclusions : Our survey analysis shows that the global MT tracking APP can generate important thrombectomy capacity and characteristics at regional levels on a global scale, which can be used for targeted funding and resource allocation to accelerate access to MT.

International Academic Affiliations: Destination or Journey? An Oman-Based Study of Policy, Practice and Potential

National policy requires private colleges in Oman to have an academic affiliation with a foreign university. How this policy is received and acted on was investigated through an interview-based study involving colleges with affiliates based in England, Scotland, India, Malaysia and Jordan. The study draws on social practice theory, Bourdieu's concept of capital and ecological systems theory and finds examples of affiliate partnerships that are evolving constructively in response to the ongoing development of the local institutions, the accumulation of capital and the agency of local actors, and the dynamics of the environment. These partnerships are perceived and experienced by local HE colleges as an ongoing journey. This evolution of partnerships, which is facilitated by historically loose policy requirements, offers a promising and contrasting narrative to that of relatively static transnational education (TNE) arrangements in which receiving nations and institutions are perceived as likely victims of educational and cultural imperialism.

Publication Rates, Ethnic and Sex Disparities in UK and Ireland Surgical Research Prize Presentations: An Analysis of Data From the Moynihan and Patey Prizes From 2000 to 2020

Background Presentation at academic conferences is an important marker of research productivity. However, not all accepted abstracts progress to full publication, and there is anecdotal evidence suggesting an imbalance in sex and ethnicity amongst presenters. There is a lack of data evaluating the outcome of prize presentation sessions at academic surgical conferences in the UK. This study aimed to analyse the outcomes and demographics from presentations at prize sessions at two prestigious UK surgical conferences. Methods This retrospective observational study compared data on all Moynihan (Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland) and Patey (Surgical Research Society) prize presentations from 2000 to 2020. The primary outcome was rate of publication. Secondary outcomes included demographic differences in sex and ethnicity, publication according to prize outcome, academic affiliation, time to publication, and journal impact factor. Results Some 442 accepted abstracts were identified over the 21-year period, with 71.0% from the Moynihan sessions and 79.3% from the Patey sessions leading to full publications, with a median time to publication of 448 days (IQR 179–859) in journals with relatively high impact factors (median 5.00; IQR 3.15–6.36). Of the 442 prize presenters, 85 (19.2%) were female. The majority of the presenters were White males (211, 47.7%), followed by Asian males (112, 25.3%). However, there was a continuously increasing overall trend of female presenters from 2000 to 2020 (P = 0.019). Conclusion Publication rates from the two prize sessions were high, with presenters publishing in journals with high impact factors. There, however, was a disparity in sex and ethnicity amongst presenters.

The structure of qualitative studies: a bibliometric pattern of biomedical literature

The lack of knowledge in the biomedical literature regarding the validity of qualitative studies might be related to the lower number of qualitative studies that have been published. The criticisms range from a lack of theoretical depth to the superficial discussions of empirical findings. The aim of this study was to explore the bibliometric entities and the trends in the structure of qualitative research in the biomedical literature. A bibliometric analysis and mapping of the biomedical literature were used. The number of studies selected was 1,725. The heath themes with the most publications included Health Management (12%) and Women’s Health (9.8%), while the authors of the studies had academic affiliation in 76 different countries. The sample sizes were between 11 and 20 participants (27.13%) and the Grounded Theory framework (9.04%) stood out. The improved structuring of a qualitative research extends the effective communication between health providers and researchers, and support in the management of clinical situations.

Editors-in-chief perceptions of patients as (co) authors on publications and the acceptability of ICMJE authorship criteria: a cross-sectional survey

Background Access to, and awareness of, appropriate authorship criteria is an important right for patient partners. Our objective was to measure medical journal Editors-in-Chief’ perceptions of including patients as (co-)authors on research publications and to measure their views on the application of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journals Editors) authorship criteria to patient partners. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey co-developed with a patient partner. Editors-in-Chief of English-language medical journals were identified via a random sample of journals obtained from the Scopus source list. The key outcome measures were whether Editors-in-Chief believed: 1) patient partners should be (co-)authors and; 2) whether they felt the ICMJE criteria for authorship required modification for use with patient partners. We also measured Editors-in-Chief description of how their journal’s operations incorporate patient partner perspectives. Results One hundred twelve Editors-in-Chief responded to our survey (18.7% response rate; 66.69% male). Participants were able to skip any questions they did not want to answer, so there is missing data for some items. 69.2% (N = 74) of Editors-in-Chief indicated it was acceptable for patient partners to be authors or co-authors on published biomedical research articles, with the remaining 30.8% (N = 33) indicating this would not be appropriate. When asked specifically about the ICMJE authorship criteria, and whether this should be revised to be more inclusive of patient partners, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should be revised, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should not be revised, and 28.4% (N = 31) were unsure about a revision. 74.1% (N = 80) of Editors-in-Chief did not think patients should be required to have an academic affiliation to published while 16.7% (N = 18) and 9.3% (N = 10) indicated they should or were unsure. 3.6% (N = 4) of Editors-in-Chief indicated their journal had a policy that specifies how patients or patient partners should be considered as authors. Conclusions Our findings highlight gaps that may act as barriers to patient partner participation in research. A key implication is the need for education and for consensus building within the biomedical community to establish processes that will facilitate equitable patient partners inclusion.

Hidradenitis Suppurativa Specialty Clinics in the USA

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a complex disease that is optimally managed with specialized care. Data on HS specialty clinics (HSSCs) are lacking. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> HSSCs in the USA were identified on the HS Foundation website and analyzed for geographic location and clinic director demographics. <b><i>Results:</i></b> We identified 29 HSSCs in 16 states, an increase from 22 in 2019. Thirty-four states currently lack a HSSC; the Mountain West and East South Central regions of the USA are particularly affected. Among HSSC directors, the majority (93.3%) are dermatologists, with slightly more women (53.3%) than men (46.7%). Most (86.7%) have an academic affiliation, and the majority (60%) graduated from residency &#x3c;10 years ago. All directors are involved in research, and over half of HSSCs serve as HS clinical trial sites. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The number of HSSCs in the USA has been growing, yet there remains a dearth in certain regions. Given that HS is a disease with high unmet need and a rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape, we encourage the establishment of more HSSCs to improve access to specialized care.

Cooperative group and pharmaceutical sponsored clinical trials: Perceptions of U.S. community oncologists.

e13571 Background: Many community-based oncologists in the US participate in clinical trials. These trials largely fall into two categories: trials run by cooperative (co-op) groups, funded and supported by the National Cancer Institute and trials developed, and supported by the pharmaceutical (pharma) industry. This study aimed to assess participation in, and perceptions regarding, co-op versus pharma trials among US community oncologists. Methods: We invited healthcare providers (HCP) across the continental US to attend 4 virtual meetings held between September and November 2020. Participants submitted their demographic information and responses to targeted questions regarding their opinions about co-op- and pharma-sponsored trials via a web-based pre-meeting survey. We evaluated participant HCP practice demographics and survey responses using descriptive statistics. Results: Of 259 surveyed participants, HCPs specialized in hematology-oncology (57%) and medical oncology (40%) with mean (median) 19 (18) years’ clinical experience. Most HCPs (178; 69%) reported participating in clinical research, and of these, 137 (77%) participated in co-op-led and 156 (88%) participated in pharma-led clinical research. HCPs preferred participating in both pharma and co-op (49%), pharma only (22%), and co-op only (11%) trials, while 18% preferred not to participate. Co-op trials were considered more prestigious to lead (86%), less likely to imply a conflict of interest (59%), and to address more pertinent questions (58%), while pharma trials had perceived advantages of better compensation (61%) and superior efficiency (48%). Co-op trials were perceived as not being financially sustainable (69%) and slower to accrue patients (85%) than pharma-led trials. Relatedly, in a hypothetical scenario of competing trials with identical design, the majority (60%) of HCPs preferred enrolling a loved one in a co-op trial. HCPs practicing in facilities with academic affiliation (34%) and in non-academic (66%) settings reported similar perceptions about co-op- and pharma-led trials; though, HCPs in academic settings were more likely to participate in clinical research compared to those in non-academic settings (82% vs. 62% [ P=0.001], respectively). Conclusions: In our survey of experienced HCPs, co-op-led clinical trials were perceived generally more favorably than pharma-led trials, even with concerns regarding cost, feasibility, and slower recruitment. However, despite their preference for co-op trials, HCPs were more likely to participate in pharma-led trials. Almost a third of surveyed HCPs are not participating in clinical trials and a fifth do not wish to. These findings can inform stakeholders (co-op trial leadership, pharma drug development teams, and patient advocacy groups) regarding appropriate education, design, and messaging regarding future clinical trials in oncology.

Interfacility transfer communication of multidrug-resistant organism colonization or infection status: Practices and barriers in the acute-care setting

Objective: To describe interfacility transfer communication (IFTC) methods for notification of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) status in a diverse sample of acute-care hospitals. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Participants: Hospitals within the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network (SRN). Methods: SRN members completed an electronic survey on protocols and methods for IFTC. We assessed differences in IFTC frequency, barriers, and perceived benefit by presence of an IFTC protocol. Results: Among 136 hospital representatives who were sent the survey, 54 (40%) responded, of whom 72% reported having an IFTC protocol in place. The presence of a protocol did not differ significantly by hospital size, academic affiliation, or international status. Of those with IFTC protocols, 44% reported consistent notification of MDRO status (>75% of the time) to receiving facilities, as opposed to 13% from those with no IFTC protocol (P = .04). Respondents from hospitals with IFTC protocols reported significantly fewer barriers to communication compared to those without (2.8 vs 4.3; P = .03). Overall, however, most respondents (56%) reported a lack of standardization in communication. Presence of an IFTC protocol did not affect whether respondents perceived IFTC protocols as having a significant impact on infection prevention or antimicrobial stewardship. Conclusions: Most respondents reported having an IFTC protocol, which was associated with reduced communication barriers at transfer. Standardization of protocols and clarity about expectations for sending and receipt of information related to MDRO status may facilitate IFTC and promote appropriate and timely infection prevention practices.

Oncologist-Reported Reasons for Not Ordering Multimarker Tumor Panels: Results From a Nationally Representative Survey

PURPOSE This study examines oncologist-reported reasons for not using multimarker tumor panel testing and the association between these reasons and oncologist-level, facility-level, and patient-mix characteristics. METHODS We used data collected from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,281) of medical oncologists participating in the National Cancer Institute's National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. RESULTS In addition to testing not being seen as relevant (87%) and no evidence of test utility (77%), the most frequently reported reasons for not ordering a multimarker tumor panel test was difficulty in obtaining sufficient tissue (57%) and using individual gene tests (72%). These reasons were more likely to be reported by oncologists practicing in rural clinics and less likely to be reported by oncologists with an academic affiliation or with access to genetic services such as on-site genetic counselors and internal genetic testing policies. CONCLUSION Modifiable, organizational factors were associated with ordering multimarker tumor panels. Receipt of genomics training and organizational policies related to the use of genomics were associated with lower reporting of barriers to ordering multimarker tumor panels, pointing to potential targets for future studies aimed at increasing appropriate multimarker tumor panel testing in cancer treatment management.