No abstract

To estimate the proportion of healthcare workers (HCWs) willing to work during an influenza pandemic and identify associated risk factors, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis compliant with PRISMA guidance. Databases and grey literature were searched to April 2013, and records were screened against protocol eligibility criteria. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were undertaken using a piloted form. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated (i) pooled proportion of HCWs willing to work and (ii) pooled odds ratios of risk factors associated with willingness to work. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. Data were synthesized narratively where meta-analyses were not possible. Forty-three studies met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the proportion of HCWs willing to work was abandoned due to excessive heterogeneity (I2 = 99·2%). Narrative synthesis showed study estimates ranged from 23·1% to 95·8% willingness to work, depending on context. Meta-analyses of specific factors showed that male HCWs, physicians and nurses, full-time employment, perceived personal safety, awareness of pandemic risk and clinical knowledge of influenza pandemics, role-specific knowledge, pandemic response training, and confidence in personal skills were statistically significantly associated with increased willingness. Childcare obligations were significantly associated with decreased willingness. HCWs' willingness to work during an influenza pandemic was moderately high, albeit highly variable. Numerous risk factors showed a statistically significant association with willingness to work despite significant heterogeneity between studies. None of the included studies were based on appropriate theoretical constructs of population behaviour.

In this paper we examine the application of informed consent to ethnographic research in health care settings. We do not quarrel with either the principle of informed consent or its translation into the requirement that research should only be carried out with consenting participants. However, we do challenge the identification of informed consent with the particular set of bureaucratic practices of ethical review which currently operate in Canada, the US and elsewhere. We argue that these anticipatory regulatory regimes threaten the significant contribution of ethnographic research to the creation of more efficient, more effective, more equitable and more humane health care systems. Informed consent in ethnographic research is neither achievable nor demonstrable in the terms set by anticipatory regulatory regimes that take clinical research or biomedical experimentation as their paradigm cases. This is because of differences in the practices of ethnographic and biomedical research which we discuss. These include the extended periods of time ethnographers spend in the research setting, the emergent nature of ethnographic research focus and design, the nature and positioning of risk in ethnographic research, the power relationships between researchers and participants, and the public and semi-public nature of the settings normally studied. Anticipatory regulatory regimes are inimical to ethnographic research and risk undermining the contribution of systematic inquiry to understanding whether institutions do what they claim to do, fairly and civilly and with an appropriate mobilisation of resources. We do not suggest that we should simply ignore ethics or leave matters to the individual consciences of researchers. Rather, we need to develop and strengthen professional models of regulation which emphasise education, training and mutual accountability. We conclude the paper with a number of suggestions about how such professional models might be implemented.

No abstract

No abstract

Seventy six senior academics from 11 countries invite The BMJ’s editors to reconsider their policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds of low priority. They challenge the journal to develop a proactive, scholarly, and pluralist approach to research that aligns with its stated mission

It is argued that social interaction involves the reciprocal typification of parties to any encounter in the light of the social theories which those parties have available to them. One element of such theories is a conception of the social structure of one's society, including a taxonomy of occupations. Two problems are generated within this taxonomy, that of inclusion, defining what properly falls within some category, and that of exclusion, defining what properly falls out with that category. One way in which these problems are resolved is in the telling of "atrocity stories" which assert and defend the rational character of an occupation and its members against illegitimate claims to its work or to social superiority. These arguments are examined in the light of data derived from a participant-observation study of health visitors, a type of British public health nurse occupying an interstitial role between health and welfare services. The uncertainities of their situation and the role of atrocity stories are examined through a consideration of their relationships with doctors, social workers, other nurses, and ancillary health workers.

This paper offers a wide-ranging analysis of concerns that the value of emotion work within nursing is being eroded. We examine the occupation's historical development to argue that, in so far as emotion work has any essence within nursing, it is as an occupational myth which has been deployed to legitimate nurses' jurisdictional claims. We argue that recent developments in health-care raise questions about the benefits of claims of this kind and suggest that a little more realism about the nature of nursing work might make for a more sustainable professional future.