Search

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck and China reported the first case to the World Health Organization in December 2019, there was no evidence-based treatment to combat it. With the catastrophic situation that followed, materialised by a considerable number of deaths, researchers, doctors, traditional healers, and governments of all nations committed themselves to find therapeutic solutions, including preventive and curative. There are effective treatments offered both by modern medicine and traditional medicine for COVID-19 today. However, other therapeutic proposals have not been approved due to the lack of effectiveness and scientific rigour during their development process. Proponents of modern medicine prefer biomedical therapies while in some countries, traditional treatments are used regularly because of their availability, affordability and satisfaction they bring to the population. In this paper, we propose a transactional medicine approach where the interaction between traditional and modern medicine produces a change. With this approach, the promoters of traditional medicine and those of modern medicine will be able to acquire knowledge through the experience produced by their encounters. Transactional medicine aims to be a model for decolonising medicine and recognising the value of both traditional and modern medicine in the fight against COVID-19 and other global emerging pathogens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reformist doctors in Thailand have combined to create a primary health care system in rural areas in which village health volunteers play a major role. Consistent with the WHO whole-of-society approach, these doctors have envisaged a decentralised system that emphasises volunteers as community oriented, self-reliant agents of change. Our ethnographic research in Chiang Mai, Thailand, reveals that these ideals of village health volunteer empowerment have not been realised. Rather, village health volunteers have become entrapped in a hierarchical, top-down health bureaucracy that affords them limited deliberative agency. We argue that this predicament reveals a conflict of paradigms between, on the one hand, an idealised holistic, spiritual dimension of health with village health volunteers as dedicated, self-sacrificing agents of local communities and, on the other hand, the imperatives of state authoritarian interventions in the avian influenza and COVID-19 pandemics, including rigorous public health protocols and epidemiological methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the early phases of Covid-19, social media platforms became a significant source of misinformation, and India emerged as a global hotspot. Studies show that 'miracle cure' for preventing and treating Covid-19 infection has been a prominent topic of misinformation. This study explores the extent to which beliefs in cure for Covid-19 in three prominent medical traditions popular in India are associated with the exposure to and trust in various sources from which the public access information. We conducted an online structured questionnaire survey of 500 respondents in August 2020 in four major cities of India. Despite the scientific consensus at that time that there was no cure for Covid-19, close to three-quarters of our respondents believe that there was a cure in at least one of the three popular medical traditions in India: Allopathy, Homeopathy, and Ayurveda. We find that exposure to and trust in WhatsApp are associated with false beliefs regarding the existence of a cure for Covid-19 (p = 0.001 and p = 0.014, respectively). While trust in science is associated with correct beliefs (p = 0.025), there is evidence that trust in government information may foster incorrect beliefs (p = 0.031). The high trust in scientific research and its potential ability to instill correct beliefs could be exploited to combat Covid-19 misinformation in India. Potential interventions such as awareness campaigns to increase digital media literacy, regulating social media platforms, and voluntary content regulation by social media platforms – might help policymakers tackle Covid-19 related misinformation effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic caused graduate medical education (GME) programs to pivot to virtual interviews (VIs) for recruitment and selection. This systematic review synthesizes the rapidly expanding evidence base on VIs, providing insights into preferred formats, strengths, and weaknesses. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, MedEdPublish, and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2012 to 21 February 2022. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. Findings were reported according to Best Evidence in Medical Education guidance. One hundred ten studies were included. The majority (97%) were from North America. Fourteen were conducted before COVID-19 and 96 during the pandemic. Studies involved both medical students applying to residencies (61%) and residents applying to fellowships (39%). Surgical specialties were more represented than other specialties. Applicants preferred VI days that lasted 4–6 h, with three to five individual interviews (15–20 min each), with virtual tours and opportunities to connect with current faculty and trainees. Satisfaction with VIs was high, though both applicants and programs found VIs inferior to in-person interviews for assessing 'fit.' Confidence in ranking applicants and programs was decreased. Stakeholders universally noted significant cost and time savings with VIs, as well as equity gains and reduced carbon footprint due to eliminating travel. The use of VIs for GME recruitment and selection has accelerated rapidly. The findings of this review offer early insights that can guide future practice, policy, and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]