A scoping review of the qualitative literature reporting experiences of living with a stoma for inflammatory bowel disease.

AIMS: Surgical treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) potentially includes stoma formation. Although positive clinical outcomes are widely reported, patients' responses to stoma surgery, including coming to terms with and adjusting to the stoma, vary widely. This scoping review charts the qualitative literature addressing the question: What is known about any personal psychosocial and quality of life factors that inform adjustment to living well with an intestinal stoma for IBD? DESIGN: A scoping review methodology was employed. DATA SOURCES: Searches of Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Medline and PsycInfo in August 2023. REVIEW METHODS: Levac et al.'s (2010) methodology was followed. PRISMA-ScR guidelines were adhered to. RESULTS: Thirteen cross-sectional studies were included, involving a total of 142 participants. Four themes were identified: (1) facilitative factors; (2) barriers to adjustment; (3) personal attributes; and (4) time and temporality. Data indicate that personal and psychological factors influence adjustment, but not how this occurs. Adjustment takes longer to achieve than is conventionally (clinically) expected. CONCLUSION: All available evidence is cross-sectional. The identified gap in the evidence is the notable lack of longitudinal research to assess, monitor and understand the complex process of adjustment in people with IBD having stoma-forming surgery. Detailed understanding of the process of adjustment would enable more targeted support for patients preparing for, and learning to live with, a stoma for IBD. IMPACT: This paper highlights the need to understand the multiple personal and psychosocial factors that affect adjustment to life with a stoma and identifies that adjustment takes significantly longer than the few weeks required to become competent in managing the stoma. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Not applicable.

Social media opposition to the 2022/2023 UK nurse strikes.

Previous research has established that the success of strikes, and social movements more broadly, depends on their ability to garner support from the public. However, there is scant published research investigating the response of the public to strike action by healthcare workers. In this study, we address this gap through a study of public responses to UK nursing strikes in 2022-2023, using a data set drawn from Twitter of more than 2300 publicly available tweets. We focus on negative tweets, investigating which societal discourses social media users draw on to oppose strike action by nurses. Using a combination of corpus-based approaches and discourse analysis, we identified five categories of opposition: (i) discourse discrediting nurses; (ii) discourse discrediting strikes by nurses; (iii) discourse on the National Health System; (iv) discourse about the fairness of strikers' demands and (v) discourse about potential harmful impact. Our findings show how social media users operationalise wider societal discourses about the nursing profession (e.g., associations with care, gender, vocation and sacrifice) as well as recent crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic to justify their opposition. The results also provide valuable insights into misconceptions about nursing, strike action and patient harm, which can inform strategies for public communication.

Political action in nursing and medical codes of ethics.

Political action has a long history in the health workforce. There are multiple historical examples, from civil disobedience to marches and even sabotage that can be attributed to health workers. Such actions remain a feature of the healthcare community to this day; their status with professional and regulatory bodies is far less clear, however. This has created uncertainty for those undertaking such action, particularly those who are engaged in what could be termed 'contentious' forms of action. This study explored how advocacy and activism were presented in nursing and medical codes of ethics, comparing disciplinary and temporo-spatial differences to understand how such action may be promoted or constrained by codes. The data for this study comes from 217 codes of ethics. Because of the size of the corpus and to facilitate analysis, natural language processing was utilised, which allowed for an automated exploration of the data and for comparisons to be drawn between groups. This was complemented by a manual search and contextualisation of the data. While there were noticeable differences between medical and nursing codes, overall, advocacy, activism and even politics were rarely discussed explicitly in most codes. When such action was spoken about, this was often vague and imprecise with codes speaking of 'political action' and 'advocacy' in general terms. While some codes were far more forthright in what they meant about advocacy or broader political action (i.e., Nursing codes in Denmark, Norway, Canada) more forceful language that spoke in specific terms or in terms of oppositional or specific actions (e.g., civil disobedience or marches) was almost completely avoided. These results are discussed in relation to the broader literature on codes and the normative questions they raise, namely whether such action should be included in codes of ethics at all.

The delivery of health services as resistance.

In this article, I will argue that the delivery of healthcare could be an act of resistance, that is, day-to-day, routine and perhaps mundane acts, undertaken in the course of the delivery of health services, which for many could also be considered otherwise routine care. I first consider how resistance has been conceptualised. How we understand resistance will determine if we believe healthcare could be conceptualised this way. I will show how resistance has been applied to day-to-day struggles elsewhere and argue that it can clearly encompass open, collective dissent and more subtle, day-to-day action that does not necessarily make clear political demands. I go on to introduce some examples, where the delivery of health services could be conceptualised as resistance. While I advocate for a broad understanding of resistance, clearly not every act could be considered resistance; I will consider some points of tension and contention in utilising resistance to describe the delivery of health services, in particular discussing the issue of intent and opposition as they relate to resistance. Finally, while I hope that I make a convincing case, one final issue remains, namely, why turn to resistance at all, when many of the examples that I provide could be labelled using concepts that are more widely utilised. I will offer some general reflections on this point, speaking to the benefits and potential of resistance.

Risk and Health Communication during Covid-19: A Linguistic Landscape Analysis.

Since the outbreak of Covid-19 health communicators around the globe have had to reach, urge, and persuade individuals and communities to adopt appropriate health protective behaviors. They have used a mix of communication channels, including outdoor media and public signage which are the focus of this paper. Drawing on a comparative linguistic landscape analysis, this paper critically examined the amount, content, and prominence of Covid-19 signage in Hackney, a London borough severely hit by the first wave of the pandemic. Having analyzed 1288 signs collected between May and July 2020, we found significant differences in Covid-19 signage between deprived and less deprived areas. These differences (e.g., in messaging about staying at home) have created inequalities in access to Covid-19 related health information and guidance. We also explored the changes in Covid-19 signage over time and the tailoring of risk and health messages to minority communities.

Inequalities in Covid-19 Messaging: A Systematic Scoping Review.

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has been widely documented. While deaths are now in the millions and many more have been impacted in other ways, the impact of Covid-19 has not been felt equally, with it exacerbating existing inequalities and disproportionately impacting a number of populations. With this Covid-19 has created unprecedented challenges in relation to health communication, with the need to reach disadvantaged populations. This systematic scoping review sought to 1) synthesize the existing research regarding communication inequalities in the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and 2) analyze the recommendations that emerge from this body of evidence on how to best address these inequalities. This review includes 40 studies that fell into three broad groups (1) those revealing a disadvantage or inequality in studies of general population; (2) those focussing on communication with sub-groups disproportionately affected by the pandemic; and (3) those reporting and evaluating practical attempts to address inequalities. The results largely corroborate those found in past pandemics, highlighting the role of sociodemographic, cultural/religious, and economic factors in facilitating/jeopardizing the public's capacity to access and act upon public health messaging. In a number of studies it was encouraging to see recommendations from the literature - particularly, lessons learnt on the importance of community partnerships, trusted messengers and the co-creation of health and risk messages - being applied, however many challenges remain unmet. Covid-19 has also highlighted the need to actively tackle misinformation, something which was recognized, but largely unaddressed.

The impact of strike action on healthcare delivery: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Strike action carried out by healthcare workers raises a range of ethical issues. Most fundamentally, as a strike is designed to disrupt, it has the potential to impact patient outcomes and healthcare delivery. This paper synthesises and analyses the empirical literature that details the impact of strike action on healthcare delivery. METHODS: A systematic scoping review was utilised to examine the extent, range and nature of research activity. Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Bioethicsline, EconLit and Web of Science were searched, yielding 5644 results. Papers were included if they examined the impact that strike action had on healthcare delivery (i.e., admissions, presentations, waiting time). After screening, 43 papers met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Nineteen studies explored presentations to emergency or admissions to hospital. Both dropped dramatically when comparing non-strike to strike periods. Ten studies examined length of stay in hospital and waiting times. No clear relationship was found with strike action, with some studies showing that wait times decreased. Nine studies examined the impact of strike action in facilities that were not on strike, but were impacted by nearby strike action along with the impact that strike action had on treatment seeking. Hospitals dealing with these upstream impacts often saw increase in presentations at hospitals, but results relates to treatment seeking during strike action were mixed. CONCLUSION: Strike action can have a substantial impact on the delivery of healthcare, but this impact is not felt uniformly across services. While many services are disrupted, a number are not, with several studies reporting increased efficiency.

A scoping review exploring the impact and negotiation of hierarchy in healthcare organisations.

Healthcare organisations are hierarchical; almost all are organised around the ranking of individuals by authority or status, whether this be based on profession, expertise, gender or ethnicity. Hierarchy is important for several reasons; it shapes the delivery of care, what is prioritised and who receives care. It also has an impact on healthcare workers and how they work and communicate together in organisations. The purpose of this scoping review is to explore the qualitative evidence related to hierarchy in healthcare organisations defined broadly, to address gaps in macro-level healthcare organisational research, specifically focusing on the (1) impact of hierarchy for healthcare workers and (2) how hierarchy is negotiated, sustained and challenged in healthcare organisations. After a search and screening, 32 papers were included in this review. The findings of this review detail the wide-reaching impacts that hierarchy has on healthcare delivery and health workers. The majority of studies spoke to hierarchy's impact on speaking up, that is, how it shaped communication between staff with differential status: not only what was said, but how it had an impact on what was acceptable to say, by whom and at what time. Hierarchy was also noted to have substantial personal costs, impacting on the well-being of those in less powerful positions. These findings also provide insight into the complex ways in which hierarchy was negotiated, challenged and reproduced. Studies not only detailed the way in which hierarchy was navigated day to day but also spoke to the reasons as to why hierarchy is often entrenched and difficult to shift. A number of studies spoke to the impact that hierarchy had in sustaining gender and ethnic inequalities, maintaining historically discriminatory practices. Importantly, hierarchy should not be reduced to differences between or within the professions in localised contexts but should be considered at a broad organisational level.

A last resort? A scoping review of patient and healthcare worker attitudes toward strike action.

While strike action has been common since the industrial revolution, it often invokes a passionate and polarising response, from the strikers themselves, from employers, governments and the general public. Support or lack thereof from health workers and the general public is an important consideration in the justification of strike action. This systematic review sought to examine the impact of strike action on patient and clinician attitudes, specifically to explore (1) patient and health worker support for strike action and (2) the predictors for supporting strike action and the reasons given for engaging in strike action. A systematic scoping review was employed to identify all relevant literature, followed by a textual narrative synthesis. A total of 34 studies met inclusion criteria. Support for strike action was largely context-dependent. A range of factors impact support for strike action; broader cultural and structural factors, such as unionisation and general acceptance of strike action; systemic factors, such as the nature of the healthcare system, including infrastructure and work conditions; the strike itself and a range of individual factors, the most notable of which was being a student or in an early career stage. There were also some surprising results, for example, during doctors strike, nurses were provided with the opportunity to expand their role, which led to greater professional autonomy and job satisfaction.

A deliberative framework to assess the justifiability of strike action in healthcare.

Healthcare strikes have been a remarkably common and varied phenomenon. Strikes have taken a number of forms, lasting from days to months, involving a range of different staff and impacting a range of healthcare systems, structured and resourced vastly differently. While there has been much debate about strike action, this appears to have done little to resolve the often polarising debate that surrounds such action. Building on the existing normative literature and a recent synthesis of the empirical literature, this paper will present a deliberative framework to assess the justifiability of strike action. I will first review the empirical literature that explores the impact of strike action, on patient outcomes and healthcare delivery. I will then discuss the debates that have occurred in this area, including an existing deliberative framework proposed by Selemogo (2014). I will argue that this framework is overly restrictive in that it could lead us to find otherwise justified strike action, unjust. I will then propose a framework that remedies these shortcomings. The framework outlines two broad conditions that should be met if strike action is to be justified. It then goes on to outline two deliberative, interrelated questions that should be used to assess whether strike action meets these conditions. For the purposes of this framework, healthcare strike action is justified when 1) it makes demands or raises grievances about some form of injustice, unfairness or threat to health and when 2) the risks in striking are proportionate to its demands or grievances. These two conditions should be considered in light of two further questions, namely, the 3) social and political context of the strike and 4) the characteristics of the strike. I will offer some further reflections on the application of this framework and its shortcomings.

Anarchy and Its Overlooked Role in Health and Healthcare.

In this paper, I will argue that a number of well-known health interventions or initiatives could be considered anarchist, or at the very least are consistent with anarchist thinking and principles. In doing this I have two aims: First, anarchism is a misunderstood term-by way of example, I hope to first sketch out what anarchist solutions in health and healthcare could look like; second, I hope to show how anarchist thought could stand as a means to improve the health of many, remedying health inequalities acting as a buffer for the many harms that threaten health and well-being. On this second point, I will argue that there are a number of theoretical and instrumental reasons why greater engagement with anarchism and anarchist thinking is needed, along with how this could contribute to health and in addressing broader injustices that create and perpetuate poor health.

Exploring the concept of non-violent resistance amongst healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Non-violent resistance which has involved healthcare workers has been instrumental in securing a number of health-related gains and a force in opposing threats to health. Despite this, we know little about healthcare workers who have engaged in acts of non-violent resistance. RESEARCH AIM: Amongst a sample of healthcare workers who had engaged in acts of resistance this study sought to explore their understanding of non-violent resistance and how or whether they felt healthcare workers made a distinct contribution to such action. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: Healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, academics and others) from the UK and Europe who had engaged in acts of non-violent resistance. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical approval for this study was granted by the University of Greenwich Human Research Ethics Committee (UREC/20.5.6.11). FINDINGS/RESULTS: Most participants spoke about the nature of non-violent resistance, its oppositional, didactic and symbolic functions and the role of violence or harm. While most people understood non-violent resistance as a public, oppositional and collective act, many identified more subtle everyday acts in the workplace that undermined policy or procedures they saw as harmful. When asked about distinctions in non-violent resistance carried out by healthcare workers, most participants referred to their standing in society, noting that healthcare works were a trusted and authoritative source. Some identified an ethical imperative to act while others identified the risks that came with such action, noting their accountability and responsibility they had to patients. About a quarter of participants felt that such action was no different to others carrying out non-violent resistance or dependent on the issue or nature of the action. CONCLUSIONS: These findings speak to the complex and multifaceted nature of non-violent resistance. Additionally our findings suggest healthcare workers have a distinct role to play in leading and supporting non-violent actions.

Ethical climate in healthcare: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ethical climate refers to the shared perception of ethical norms and sets the scope for what is ethical and acceptable behaviour within teams. AIM: This paper sought to explore perceptions of ethical climate amongst healthcare workers as measured by the Ethical Climate Questionnaire (ECQ), the Hospital Ethical Climate Survey (HECS) and the Ethics Environment Questionnaire (EEQ). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was utilised. PSYCINFO, CINAHL, WEB OF SCIENCE, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched, and papers were included if they sampled healthcare workers and used the ECQ, HECS or EEQ. ETHICAL CONSIDERATION: Ethical approval was not required. RESULTS: The search returned 1020 results. After screening, 61 papers were included (n = 43 HECS, n = 15 ECQ, n = 3 EEQ). The overall sample size was over 17,000. The pooled mean score for the HECS was 3.60. Mean scores of individual studies ranged from 2.97 to 4.5. For the HECS studies, meta-regression was carried out. No relationship was found between the country of the studies, the study setting (ICU v non-ICU settings) or the mean years of experience that the sample had. For the ECQ, sub-scales had mean scores ranging from 3.41 (instrumental) to 4.34 (law) and were all observed to have significant and substantial heterogeneity. Three studies utilised the EEQ so further analysis was not carried out. CONCLUSIONS: The above results provide insight into the variability of scores as measured by the HECS, ECQ and EEQ. To some extent, this variability is not surprising with studies carried out across 21 countries and in a range of healthcare systems. Results also suggest that it may be that more local and context specific factors are more important when it comes to predicting ethical climate.

A systematic scoping review of undergraduate nursing hub-and-spoke placement models.

BACKGROUND: While nursing education has been forecast to continue to grow, placement capacity is now the key factor precluding growth in supply. AIMS: To provide a comprehensive understanding of hub-and-spoke placements and their ability to increase placement capacity. METHOD: A systematic scoping review and narrative synthesis were used (Arksey and O'Malley, 2005). PRISMA checklist and ENTREQ reporting guidelines were followed. FINDINGS: The search returned 418 results. After a first and second screen 11 papers were included. Results suggest that hub-and-spoke models were generally evaluated favourably by nursing students, with a range of benefits reported. However, many of the studies included in the review were small and of low quality. CONCLUSION: Given the exponential increase in applications to study nursing, hub-and-spoke placements appear to have the potential to better meet these increased demands, while also providing a number of benefits.

Self-harm in immigration detention: political, not (just) medical.

Self-harm within immigration detention centres has been a widely documented phenomenon, occurring at far higher rates than the wider community. Evidence suggests that factors such as the conditions of detention and uncertainty about refugee status are among the most prominent precipitators of self-harm. While important in explaining self-harm, this is not the entire story. In this paper, we argue for a more overtly political interpretation of detainee self-harm as resistance and assess the ethical implications of this view, drawing on interviews with detainees from Australia's offshore system. Self-harm by detainees is not only a medical 'condition' arising in response to oppression but a form of political action to lessen or contest it. We first establish how self-harm could be conceptualised as resistance. We then discuss its political purpose, noting it serves at least three functions: intrinsic, instrumental and disruptive or coercive. Viewing detainee self-harm as political resistance is a supplement to (rather than a substitute for) a medical approach. However, conceptualising self-harm this way has several advantages, namely, moving away from the idea that such behaviour is 'maladaptive', recognising detainees as political agents, combatting government claims of 'manipulation' and 'blackmail' and clarifying the duties of healthcare workers who work in detention.

Health of children in Australian immigration detention centres: An analysis of the quarterly health reports from 2014 to 2017.

AIM: This study examines 3 years of child and adolescent health data from Australian onshore and offshore immigration detention centres from 2014 to 2017, quantifying the health presentation data of children and adolescents in Australian immigration detention and comparing rates between onshore and offshore detention. METHODS: This study utilised the Quarterly Immigration Detention Health Reports over a period of 3 years. To compare onshore and offshore datasets, we calculated the rate of health events per quarter against the estimated quarterly onshore and offshore detention population of children. We ran a series of two-proportion z-tests for each matched quarter to calculate median z and P values for all quarters. These were used as an indicator as to whether the observed differences between onshore and offshore events were statistically significant. RESULTS: The estimated number of children detained per quarter onshore ranged from 700 in 2014 (quarter 3) to 13 in 2016 (quarters 3 and 4); the estimated quarterly population of children in offshore detention ranged from 186 in 2014 (quarter 3) to 42 in 2017 (quarter 2). Children offshore had significantly higher rates of consultations with a mental health nurse (z = -1.96; P = 0.002), psychologist (z = -2.32; P = 0.01) and counsellor (z = -3.41; P < 0.001). As for reasons for presentation to general practitioners and psychiatrists, complaints related to skin (z = -1.97; P = 0.05), respiratory issues (z = -1.96; P = 0.05) and urological issues (z = -2.21; P = 0.03) were significantly higher amongst children detained offshore. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to children in the Australian community, children detained both onshore and offshore had greater health needs. Children offshore also presented more frequently with a range of complaints and accessed health services at higher rates than children detained onshore; this adds to growing evidence about the harms of offshore detention and detention more generally.

The impact of strike action on patient morbidity: A systematic literature review.

Strike action in healthcare has been common over the last several decades. The overarching aim of this systematic review was to synthesise and analyse the empirical literature that examines the impact of strike action on patient morbidity, that is, all patient outcomes except mortality. After conducting a search and apply eligibility criteria, 15 studies were included in this review. These articles included a variety of outcomes from hypertension control to rates of chlamydia. Strikes ranged from 13 to 118 days, with a mean strike length of 56 days. A textual narrative synthesis was employed to arrange studies by whether they had a positive, mixed or neutral or negative impact on patient morbidity. Results suggest that strike action has little impact on patient morbidity. The majority of studies reported that strike action had a neutral or mixed impact of strike action on patient morbidity. One study reported positive outcomes and three studies reported negative outcomes, however in both cases, the impact that the strike had was marginal.

Structural injustice and dismantling racism in health and healthcare.

Racism in health and healthcare has long been recognised as a structural issue. While there has been growing research and a number of important initiatives that have come from approaching racism as a structural issue, there is a range of implications that yet have to be explored as they relate to health and healthcare. Conceptualising racism in this way provides a means to consider how it shapes and is shaped by a range of global injustices and serves as a foundation for more egregious harms. It also suggests that if we are to dismantle racism, we need to look both within and beyond the traditional domains of health and healthcare and account for a range of broader forces that sustain and re-enforce racism. We first discuss the issue of responsibility, drawing on Young's social connection model to argue that we all have a responsibility to take action in addressing structural racism. We will then deal with a question that naturally follows, namely how we discharge our responsibilities, with a focus on the role of disruptive action in challenging power and ignorance in dismantling racism in health and healthcare.

The justification for strike action in healthcare: A systematic critical interpretive synthesis.

Strike action in healthcare has been a common global phenomenon. As such action is designed to be disruptive, it creates substantial ethical tension, the most cited of which relates to patient harm, that is, a strike may not only disrupt an employer, but it could also have serious implications for the delivery of care. This article systematically reviewed the literature on strike action in healthcare with the aim of providing an overview of the major justifications for strike action, identifying relative strengths and shortcomings of this literature and providing direction for future discussions, and theoretical and empirical research. Three major themes emerged related to (1) the relationship between healthcare workers, patients and society; (2) the consequences of strike action; and (3) the conduct of strike action. Those who argue against strike action generally cite the harms of such action, particularly as it relates to patients. Many also argue that healthcare workers, because of their skills and position in society, have a special obligation to their patients and society more generally. Those who see this action as not only permissible but also, in some cases, necessary have advanced several points in response, arguing that healthcare workers do not necessarily have any special obligation to their patients or society, and even if so, this obligation is not absolute. Overwhelmingly, when talking about the potential risks of strike action, authors have focused on patient welfare and the impact that a strike could have. Several directions for future work are identified, including greater explorations into how structural and systemic issues impact strike action, the need for greater consideration about the contextual factors that influence the risks and characteristics of strike action and finally the need to tie this literature to existing empirical evidence.

Resistance in health and healthcare.

In this article I will introduce and outline the concept of resistance as it relates to health and healthcare. Starting with a number of examples of action, I will then turn to the broader literature to discuss some conventional definitions and related concepts, outlining debates, controversies and limitations related to conceptualizing resistance. I conceptualize resistance broadly, as any act, performed by any individual (or collective) acting as or explicitly identifying as a healthcare professional, that is a response to power, most often in opposition to contentious, harmful or unjust rules, practices, policies or structures. Practically this could account for any public action, marches, sit-ins and civil disobedience, but also forms of 'everyday resistance', such as working slowly, feigning sickness, or even providing care for marginalized groups that would otherwise not have access. Such action could go unrecognized by those in power and perhaps more contentiously, those resisting needn't even recognize their actions as resistance. I will then apply this conceptualization to explain action that has been undertaken by healthcare professionals, identifying its key features. I will briefly discuss future directions for inquiry that appear particularly pressing. These including ongoing conceptual development, identifying the functions of resistance in health and healthcare along with what makes it distinct from healthcare as usual and other forms of resistance and finally, the range of normative questions resistance raises.