The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 on Nursing Education: Evidence, Experience, and Lessons Learned

This article examines the multifaceted impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on nursing education, with a focus on implications for critical care. Issues including the rapid transition to remote learning, stress and burnout, disengagement, challenges in clinical education, ethical dilemmas, and the influence of workforce dynamics on nursing education are discussed. The article explores challenges, opportunities, and the invaluable lessons learned from this unprecedented crisis. Understanding the evolving dynamics is essential for nursing education and practice, offering a pathway toward a more resilient and promising future for both individuals and the nursing profession as a whole.

"I don´t put people into boxes, but…" A free-listing exercise exploring social categorisation of asylum seekers by professionals in two German reception centres

Newly arriving asylum seekers in Germany mostly live in large reception centres, depending on professionals in most aspects of their daily lives. The legal basis for the provision of goods and services allows for discretionary decisions. Given the potential impact of social categorisation on professionals' decisions, and ultimately access to health and social services, we explore the categories used by professionals. We ask of what nature these categorisations are, and weather they align with the public discourse on forced migration. Within an ethnographic study in outpatient clinics of two refugee accommodation centres in Germany, we conducted a modified free-listing with 40 professionals (physicians, nurses, security-personnel, social workers, translators) to explore their categorisation of asylum seekers. Data were qualitatively analysed, and categories were quantitatively mapped using Excel and the Macro "Flame" to show frequencies, ranks, and salience. The four most relevant social categorisations of asylum seekers referred to "demanding and expectant," "polite and friendly" behaviour, "economic refugees," and "integration efforts". In general, sociodemographic variables like gender, age, family status, including countries and regions of origin, were the most significant basis for categorisations (31%), those were often presented combined with other categories. Observations of behaviour and attitudes also influenced categorisations (24%). Professional considerations, e.g., on health, education, adaption or status ranked third (20%). Social categorisation was influenced by public discourses, with evaluations of flight motives, prospects of staying in Germany, and integration potential being thematised in 12% of the categorisations. Professionals therefore might be in danger of being instrumentalised for internal border work. Identifying social categories is important since they structure perception, along their lines deservingness is negotiated, so they potentially influence interaction and decision-making, can trigger empathy and support as well as rejection and discrimination. Larger studies should investigate this further. Free-listing provides a suitable tool for such investigations.

Explicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism, but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during COVID-19

Disturbingly realistic triage scenarios during the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity for studying discrimination in moral reasoning. Biases and favoritism do not need to be explicit and overt, but can remain implicit and covert. In addition to assessing laypeople's propensity for engaging in overt discrimination, the present study examines whether they reveal implicit biases through seemingly fair random allocations. We present a cross-sectional online study comprising 6 timepoints and a total of 2296 participants. Each individual evaluated 19 hypothetical scenarios that provide an allocation dilemma between two patients who are in need of ventilation and differ only in one focal feature. Participants could either allocate the last ventilator to a patient, or opt for random allocation to express impartiality. Overall, participants exhibited clear biases for the patient who was expected to be favored based on health factors, previous ethical or caretaking behaviors, and in-group favoritism. If one patient had been pre-allocated care, a higher probability of keeping the ventilator for the favored patient indicates persistent favoritism. Surprisingly, the absence of an asymmetry in random allocations indicates the absence of covert discrimination. Our results demonstrate that laypeople's hypothetical triage decisions discriminate overtly and show explicit biases.

Who does COVID-19 hurt most? Perceptions of unequal impact and political implications

While the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on U.S. population health has been devastating, it has not affected everyone equally. The risks of hospitalization and death from the disease are relatively low for the population as a whole, but much higher for specific subpopulations defined by age, health status, and race or ethnicity. The extent to which Americans perceive these disparities is an open question, with potentially important political implications. Recognition of unequal impacts may prime concerns about justice and fairness, making Americans more concerned and willing to support government intervention. On the other hand, belief that the pandemic primarily threatens "other people" or out-groups may reduce, rather than increase, a person's concern. Partisanship and media consumption habits are also likely to play a role in these perceptions, as they do in most issues related to COVID-19. In this paper, we use original survey data from the Cooperative Election Study (N = 1000) to explore Americans' perceptions of which groups are most harmed by the pandemic, the demographic and political determinants of these perceptions, and the relationship of these perceptions with their opinions about COVID-related mitigation policy. We find that, on average, people perceived accurately that certain groups (e.g., Black Americans, older people) were more affected, but these group perceptions varied by demographic and political characteristics of respondents. We find, in contrast with recent experimental evidence, that the perception that populations of color were harmed was associated with more support for pandemic mitigation strategies. More research should investigate the relationships among pandemic politics and the racial dynamics of the target populations most affected.

Distributive justice criteria and social categorization processes predict healthcare allocation bias

OBJECTIVES

Drawing on theories of distributive justice and intergroup discrimination, we examined how much distributive justice criterion and racial group membership contribute to bias in healthcare allocation decisions, by testing a theoretical model that specifies perceived stereotypicality and individual responsibility as a serial mediation process in the relationship between disease's contraction controllability (controllable vs. non-controllable) and bias in medical decision-making.

METHOD

White Portuguese medical students (N = 213) participated in an online experimental study conducted in two phases. In phase 1, we manipulated the cause of disease contagion and the salience of patient's racial categorization, and measured the stereotypicality of behaviour. In phase 2, we assessed perceived responsibility and likelihood of recommending medical treatment.

RESULTS

Controllable (vs. non-controllable) contraction behaviours in phase 1 were perceived as more stereotypic. As a spillover effect, more stereotypical behaviours in phase 1 predicted more patient's responsibility for their disease in phase 2. Importantly, controllable behaviours of disease contraction in phase 1 negatively affected recommendations for medical treatment in phase 2; and this negative effect was serially mediated by the stereotypicality of behaviour and patient responsibility. Furthermore, patients' skin colour moderated this process, meaning that perceptions of controllable behaviour as more stereotypic were stronger for Black than for White patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This research shows how stereotyping and social categorization bias allocation decisions through the patient's level of responsibility in decision-making processes. The findings are discussed in light of principles of distributive justice and the literature on intergroup relations with respect to racial disparities in health care.

Community preferences for the allocation of scarce healthcare resources during the Covid-19 pandemic: a review of the literature

Objective

The purpose of this thematic review is to examine the literature on the publics’ preferences of scarce medical resource allocation during COVID-19.

Study design

Literature review.

Methods

A review of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus was performed between December 2019 and June 2022 for eligible articles.

Results

Fifteen studies using three methodologies and spanning five continents were included. Five key themes were identified: (1) prioritise the youngest; (2) save the most lives; (3) egalitarian allocation approaches; (4) prioritise healthcare workers; and (5) bias against particular groups. The public gave high priority to allocation that saved the most lives, particularly to patients who are younger and healthcare workers. Themes present but not supported as broadly were giving priority to individuals with disabilities, high frailty or those with behaviours that may have contributed to their ill-health (e.g. smokers). Allocation involving egalitarian approaches received the least support among community members.

Conclusion

The general public prefer rationing scarce medical resources in the COVID-19 pandemic based on saving the most lives and giving priority to the youngest and frontline healthcare workers rather than giving preference to patients with disabilities, frailty or perceived behaviours that may have contributed to their own ill-health. There is also little public support for allocation based on egalitarian strategies.

How to fairly allocate scarce medical resources? Controversial preferences of healthcare professionals with different personal characteristics

The scarcity of medical resources is widely recognized, and therefore priority setting is inevitable. This study examines whether Portuguese healthcare professionals (physicians vs nurses): (i) share the moral guidance proposed by ethicists and (ii) attitudes toward prioritization criteria vary among individual and professional characteristics. A sample of 254 healthcare professionals were confronted with hypothetical prioritization scenarios involving two patients distinguished by personal or health characteristics. Descriptive statistics and parametric analyses were performed to evaluate and compare the adherence of both groups of healthcare professionals regarding 10 rationing criteria: waiting time, treatment prognosis measured in life expectancy and quality of life, severity of health conditions measured in pain and immediate risk of dying, age discrimination measured in favoring the young over older and favoring the youngest over the young, merit evaluated positively or negatively, and parenthood. The findings show a slight adherence to the criteria. Waiting time and patient pain were the conditions considered fairer by respondents in contrast with the ethicists normative. Preferences for distributive justice vary by professional group and among participants with different political orientations, rationing experience, years of experience, and level of satisfaction with the NHS. Decision-makers should consider the opinion of ethicists, but also those of healthcare professionals to legitimize explicit guidelines.

Perceived proprietary right to resources and its role in reciprocal prejudices between Black and Asian Americans

I offer a new measure of perceived proprietary right (PPR) to resources as an operationalization of one critical aspect of Harold Blumer's group threat theory. Black (n = 82), Asian (n = 72), and White (n = 176) participants completed PPR items in the context of a residential resource allocation task designed to evoke competitive threat. A four-factor model of PPR was established through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. For Black participants, competitive threat was directly related to anti-Asian prejudice. For Asian participants, competitive threat was related to anti-Black prejudice indirectly, through belief in merit as a source of PPR. Moderated parallel mediation models also uncovered PPR beliefs - on the basis of past oppression and outsider status - as possible sources of allyship between Black and Asian community members. Findings are discussed in relation to Black and Asian relations specifically and the contribution of PPR to intergroup relations more generally.

Allocating a scarce mental health treatment to the underweight and overweight

BACKGROUND

This is one of a number of programmatic studies on the allocation of scarce medical resources.

AIMS

This study investigated whether certain characteristics about patients influence the priority they are assigned for a scarce mental health treatment. Similar studies for physical treatments have found that young, poor, and mentally healthy patients are given the highest priority.

METHOD

Each participant completed one questionnaire where they ranked a list of eight hypothetical patients in order of priority for treatment for anorexia or obesity. The patients varied on three dimensions: age, social class and mental health history. This involved a ranking of prioritisation for treatment.

RESULTS

Participants gave the young patients, from a low social class background, who had a mental health history the highest priority for treatment. This is in contrast to previous studies indicating that the mentally unwell are discriminated against.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants seemed to be using social class as a proxy measure of ability to pay which they weighted very highly.

How to Fairly Allocate Scarce Medical Resources: Ethical Argumentation under Scrutiny by Health Professionals and Lay People

Background

Societies are facing medical resource scarcities, inter alia due to increased life expectancy and limited health budgets and also due to temporal or continuous physical shortages of resources like donor organs. This makes it challenging to meet the medical needs of all. Ethicists provide normative guidance for how to fairly allocate scarce medical resources, but legitimate decisions require additionally information regarding what the general public considers to be fair. The purpose of this study was to explore how lay people, general practitioners, medical students and other health professionals evaluate the fairness of ten allocation principles for scarce medical resources: ‘sickest first’, ‘waiting list’, ‘prognosis’, ‘behaviour’ (i.e., those who engage in risky behaviour should not be prioritized), ‘instrumental value’ (e.g., health care workers should be favoured during epidemics), ‘combination of criteria’ (i.e., a sequence of the ‘youngest first’, ‘prognosis’, and ‘lottery’ principles), ‘reciprocity’ (i.e., those who provided services to the society in the past should be rewarded), ‘youngest first’, ‘lottery’, and ‘monetary contribution’.

Methods

1,267 respondents to an online questionnaire were confronted with hypothetical situations of scarcity regarding (i) donor organs, (ii) hospital beds during an epidemic, and (iii) joint replacements. Nine allocation principles were evaluated in terms of fairness for each type of scarcity along 7-point Likert scales. The relationship between demographic factors (gender, age, religiosity, political orientation, and health status) and fairness evaluations was modelled with logistic regression.

Results

Medical background was a major predictor of fairness evaluations. While general practitioners showed different response patterns for all three allocation situations, the responses by lay people were very similar. Lay people rated ‘sickest first’ and ‘waiting list’ on top of all allocation principles—e.g., for donor organs 83.8% (95% CI: [81.2%–86.2%]) rated ‘sickest first’ as fair (‘fair’ is represented by scale points 5–7), and 69.5% [66.2%–72.4%] rated ‘waiting list’ as fair. The corresponding results for general practitioners: ‘prognosis’ 79.7% [74.2%–84.9%], ‘combination of criteria’ 72.6% [66.4%–78.5%], and ‘sickest first’ 74.5% [68.6%–80.1%); these were the highest-rated allocation principles for donor organs allocation. Interestingly, only 44.3% [37.7%–50.9%] of the general practitioners rated ‘instrumental value’ as fair for the allocation of hospital beds during a flu epidemic. The fairness evaluations by general practitioners obtained for joint replacements: ‘sickest first’ 84.0% [78.8%–88.6%], ‘combination of criteria’ 65.6% [59.2%–71.8%], and ‘prognosis’ 63.7% [57.1%–70.0%]. ‘Lottery’, ‘reciprocity’, ‘instrumental value’, and ‘monetary contribution’ were considered very unfair allocation principles by both groups. Medical students’ ratings were similar to those of general practitioners, and the ratings by other health professionals resembled those of lay people.

Conclusions

Results are partly at odds with current conclusions proposed by some ethicists. A number of ethicists reject ‘sickest first’ and ‘waiting list’ as morally unjustifiable allocation principles, whereas those allocation principles received the highest fairness endorsements by lay people and to some extent also by health professionals. Decision makers are advised to consider whether or not to give ethicists, health professionals, and the general public an equal voice when attempting to arrive at maximally endorsed allocations of scarce medical resources.

Who deserves health care? The effects of causal attributions and group cues on public attitudes about responsibility for health care costs

This research investigates the impact of cues about ascriptive group characteristics (race, class, gender) and the causes of ill health (health behaviors, inborn biological traits, social systemic factors) on beliefs about who deserves society's help in paying for the costs of medical treatment. Drawing on data from three original vignette experiments embedded in a nationally representative survey of American adults, we find that respondents are reluctant to blame or deny societal support in response to explicit cues about racial attributes--but equally explicit cues about the causal impact of individual behaviors on health have large effects on expressed attitudes. Across all three experiments, a focus on individual behavioral causes of illness is associated with increased support for individual responsibility for health care costs and lower support for government-financed health insurance. Beliefs about social groups and causal attributions are, however, tightly intertwined. We find that when groups suffering ill health are defined in racial, class, or gender terms, Americans differ in their attribution of health disparities to individual behaviors versus biological or systemic factors. Because causal attributions also affect health policy opinions, varying patterns of causal attribution may reinforce group stereotypes and undermine support for universal access to health care.

Images of illness: how causal claims and racial associations influence public preferences toward diabetes research spending

Despite the salience of health disparities in media and policy discourse, little previous research has investigated if imagery associating an illness with a certain racial group influences public perceptions. This study evaluated the influence of the media's presentation of the causes of type 2 diabetes and its implicit racial associations on attitudes toward people with diabetes and preferences toward research spending. Survey participants who viewed an article on genetic causation or social determinants of diabetes were more likely to support increased government spending on research than those viewing an article with no causal language, while participants viewing an article on behavioral choices were more likely to attribute negative stereotypes to people with diabetes. Participants who viewed a photo of a black woman accompanying the article were less likely to endorse negative stereotypes than those viewing a photo of a white woman, but those who viewed a photo of a glucose-testing device expressed the lowest negative stereotypes. The effect of social determinants language was significantly different for blacks and whites, lowering stereotypes only among blacks. Emphasizing the behavioral causes of diabetes, as is common in media coverage, may perpetuate negative stereotypes. While drawing attention to the social determinants that shape these behaviors could mitigate stereotypes, this strategy is unlikely to influence the public uniformly.

Projection, stereotyping, and the perception of chronic medical conditions

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypotheses that people with chronic medical conditions are more likely than those without chronic medical conditions to project personal characteristics onto the population with chronic medical conditions, and that people without chronic medical conditions are more likely to stereotype those with chronic medical conditions.

METHODS

The study is a secondary analysis of the 2000 Chronic Illness and Caregiving survey conducted by Harris Interactive Inc. using linear and probit regressions.

RESULTS

The hypothesis that persons with chronic medical conditions project their characteristics onto the population of those with chronic medical conditions is strongly supported. The hypothesis that persons without chronic medical conditions stereotype the population of those with chronic medical conditions is weakly supported.

DISCUSSION

The findings imply that characterizations of persons with chronic medical conditions vary more among those with chronic medical conditions than among those without, and that those without chronic medical conditions have more homogeneous representations. This difference between those who have chronic medical conditions and those who do not implies a potential for greater variation in support for the particulars of policies addressing chronic medical conditions among those with chronic medical conditions.