Human Rights of Forced Migrants During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Opportunity for Mobilization and Solidarity.

The question of human mobility is inextricably tied to the COVID-19 pandemic that started in late 2019 and whose effects continue to unfold. Human mobility-especially with global advances in transportation and interconnectedness-is an important factor in the spread of the pandemic. Yet, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the millions of people forced to migrate for safety and economic reasons has received little attention. In this article, we provide an overview of human rights challenges that forced migrants currently face during this pandemic. While we do not address all dimensions of the impact COVID-19, we highlight several troubling situations that have emerged for refugees and asylum seekers. These include entry restrictions into some countries that had formerly welcomed asylum seekers, overt and covert forms of exclusion of migrants from labor markets due to rising unemployment and economic hardship, and implementing new deportation policies, as well as new exclusionary policies for immigrants who would have been authorized to work in past. Without concerted efforts to amplify solidarity with all forced migrants and ensure their human rights, discriminatory and restrictionist policies enacted in the Global North over the past decade will become entrenched. As a result, fewer refugees and asylum seekers will be accorded protection and continue to face violence and persecution in their home countries.

The rationale for nurses on boards in the voices of nurses who serve.

BACKGROUND: Inclusion of nurses on boards (NOB) to enhance health care transformation is recommended; however, there is no research-based rationale for NOB. PURPOSE: To articulate the rationale for NOB in the voices of nurses who serve. METHODS: An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used with priority on the quantitative strand (Delphi method). The qualitative strand was accomplished with focus groups. FINDINGS: Twenty-nine NOB participants (Delphi phase) and nine NOB participants (focus groups) agreed the rationale for NOB is embedded in specific knowledge, skills, and perspectives that nurses contribute for boardroom discussions and policymaking. This study supported anecdotal literature promoting nurses for board leadership. DISCUSSION: Nurses should be appointed to boards of directors based on their knowledge, skills, and perspectives about health care. Board leadership leverages the public's trust in nursing, advances the profession, and positions nurses to influence health care transformation. Further research is recommended.

Nurses on health care governing boards: An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Nurses are key change agents in health care; yet, nurses have not been sufficiently engaged on boards to shape decision making. Without an equal voice in the boardroom, nurses cannot fulfill their professional obligation to society. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to understand the progression in research focus and recommendations over time about nurses on boards (NOB), identify research gaps, and make research/practice recommendations. METHODS: An integrative review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (2009) for data evaluation and analysis. Eleven studies (six quantitative, three qualitative, and two quasi-mixed methods) were included in the review. FINDINGS: The focus/recommendations of research about NOB have changed from passive observation to action-oriented inquiry that considers nurse expertise and value but lacks a coordinated approach to advance board appointments for nurses. CONCLUSION: A systematic approach to the research is needed to advance NOB as key agents in health care transformation and social justice.

Reframing violence against women as a human rights violation: Evan Stark's Coercive Control.

Evan Stark claims that partner-perpetrated physical abuse and other forms of violence against women ought to be understood as a human rights violation. The authors engage Stark's rhetorically powerful political and analytical innovation by outlining one theoretical and one practical challenge to shifting the paradigm that researchers, advocates, and policy makers use to describe, explain, and remedy the harms of coercive control from misdemeanor assault to human rights violation. The theoretical challenge involves overcoming the public/ private dichotomy that underpins liberal conceptions of human rights.The practical challenge involves using the human rights framework in the United States, given public indifference to human rights rhetoric or law, reluctance of U.S. policy makers to submit to scrutiny or justice-oriented processes under international law on issues of human rights and especially war crimes, and the consequent U.S. legacy of refusal to participate meaningfully in the international human rights process. The authors conclude that employing a human rights framework holds potential in the United States, but the paradigm shift Stark advocates will not materialize without widespread mobilization of interest in and understanding of human rights among domestic violence advocates and the society in general.