The Three Rs of Fear Messaging in a Global Pandemic: Recommendations, Ramifications and Remediation.

INTRODUCTION: We consider the UK Independent Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours' (SPI-B) support for fear messaging during the global COVID-19 pandemic, evaluate the consequences and make recommendations for the future. ANALYSIS: Using evidence from published documents, we show that SPI-B supported the use of fear messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is inconsistent with the extant psychological literature and contrary to the disaster planning literature. The recommendations regarding fear messaging may have had harmful ramifications and impacts, especially for young people. CONCLUSION: We recommend that a wider multidisciplinary expertise is employed to deal effectively, ethically and holistically with future crises. Plans for future pandemics must include meaningful engagement with the public, particularly children and young people.

Identification of the Incapacitated Patient in Mass Casualty Events: An Exploration of Challenges, Solutions, and Barriers.

Increasing scrutiny of the role and actions of emergency responders in the aftermath of mass casualty events has led to improvements and advances in terms of treatment and care. However, despite these improvements, the authors have identified a growing concern relating to the identification of incapacitated patients and those unable to provide any identifying details, such as pediatric patients. The use of visual identification and the reliance on personal effects within the vicinity of a victim, either living or deceased, has resulted in mistaken identification in a number of major international incidents. The purpose of this article is to consider whether commonly used scientific methods for identification of the deceased could and should be broadened to include victims who are incapacitated and unable to confirm their own identity. The medicolegal questions that may arise when applying identification methods established for deceased patients to the living casualty will also be examined. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:338-344).

Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals following the James Lind Alliance methodology.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and prioritise important research questions for miscarriage. DESIGN: A priority setting partnership using prospective surveys and consensus meetings following methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. SETTING: UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women and those affected by miscarriage working alongside healthcare professionals. RESULTS: In the initial survey, 1093 participants (932 women who have experienced miscarriage, 8 partners, 17 family members, friends or colleagues, 104 healthcare professionals and eight charitable organisations) submitted 3279 questions. A review of existing literature identified a further 64. Non-questions were removed, and the remaining questions were categorised and summarised into 58 questions. In an interim electronic survey, 2122 respondents chose their top 10 priorities from the 58 summary questions. The 25 highest ranked in the survey were prioritised at a final face-to-face workshop. In summary, the top 10 priorities were ranked as follows: research into preventative treatment, emotional aspects in general, investigation, relevance of pre-existing medical conditions, emotional support as a treatment, importance of lifestyle factors, importance of genetic and chromosomal causes, preconception tests, investigation after different numbers of miscarriage and male causal factors. CONCLUSIONS: These results should be the focus of future miscarriage research. Presently, studies are being conducted to address the top priority; however, many other priorities, especially psychological and emotional support, are less well researched areas. We hope our results will encourage both researchers and funders to focus on these priorities.