Search

The paper takes a scientometric approach to measure the change in research productivity of Italian academics before the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. We propose a composite output/input bibliometric indicator and apply it at the field level, conducting a longitudinal analysis. Although the number of academics in the national academic system has decreased, we register very strong growth in both the number of publications and their scholarly impact. The growth in productivity, with only rare exceptions, crosses almost all fields. However, in areas that are traditionally very internationalized (Biology, Physics, and Chemistry), growth is less sustained than overall average, and also the variability of productivity across fields seems reduced. The main reason for this detail would be the smaller margins for improvement in the fields that had already reached high international standing. What emerges from the analysis goes counter to some alarms of declining scientific productivity at the global level. The Italian case is partly explained by the historic adoption of policies aimed at strengthening competitive mechanisms, in particular through the introduction of systems of performance-based research funding, and bibliometric accreditation for professorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The dissemination of scientific data on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continually builds but, in April 2020, could not keep up with the spread of the disease. Through technology, surgeons in Italy and the UK, representing both peak and pre-peak infective time zones, were able to communicate so that the urgent lessons on the huge expected demands of care learned in Italy could be brought to the UK in advance. This paper specifically discusses the issues related to paediatric surgery, currently under-reported in the literature. Methods The aim of this paper is to conjoin experience from the field to provide a framework for a safe assessment and treatment of paediatric patients by adopting a systemic approach aimed at reducing the risk of contamination. We reviewed the processes and good practices that were undertaken in contexts of emergency such as in Italy and the UK and then adapted them within the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework to provide an assessment of how to reorganize the services in order to cope with an unexpected situation. The SEIPS model is the adopted theoretical framework, which allows to analyse the system in its main components with a human factors and ergonomics (HFE) perspective. Results The results introduce some of the good practices and recommendations developed during the emergency in the surgical scenario with a focus on the paediatric patients. They represent the lessons learned from the combination of the little existing evidence of literature and the experience from surgical teams who responded in an impromptu and unrehearsed way. Conclusions Lessons learned from the frontline 'on the fly' during COVID-19 emergency should be consolidated and taken into the future. In order to prepare proactively for the next phases and get ahead of the curve of these hospital accesses, there is a need for a risk assessment of the new clinical pathways with a multidisciplinary approach centred on HFE with the adoption of the SEIPS model and an involvement of all the surgical teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mental health, particularly among young adults, has been severely affected during the COVID-19 pandemic, partially because of both forced social isolation measures and loneliness. Numerous papers on the short-term consequences of lockdown measures reported high psychological distress, as well as an increase of depressive and anxiety symptoms and psychotropic drug use. This study evaluated potential risk and protective factors, such as resilience, loneliness, social and family context, in order to detect vulnerable individuals. Methods: This prospective longitudinal study was carried out in a two phase survey: the first one, during lockdown in Spring 2020 (T1), and, the second one, in Summer 2020 (T2), when restrictive measures were slackened. The main outcomes included the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale. The secondary outcomes included mental health care needs (MHCN), use of psychotropic drugs and family and social contacts. Results: This study evaluated risks and protective factors in mental health in 825 emerging adults aged from 18 to 25 years old in Belgium and in Italy. Participants were divided into three groups according to their MHCN before and after lockdown measures. 5% of the participants experienced an increase in MHCN at T1, including the start of a psychotropic treatment. At T1, statistically significant differences were found in mean RSA total scores and RSA Perception of Self scores between groups. At T2, the group who experienced an increase in MHCN displayed a significant decrease of mean loneliness scores compared with the other groups. This decrease is linearly correlated with resilience competencies. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated restrictive measures cause a negative impact on youth’s mental health, particularly among vulnerable individuals. Resilience and social contacts are protective factors that need to be taken into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]