Lykketang3314

Background Zambia has created new disability policies and updated existing policies to be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These initiatives require the widespread engagement of ministries and departments to achieve effective policy development and implementation. To pursue widespread engagement, the Government of Zambia developed a structure of disability focal point persons (FPPs). The Zambian disability FPP structure has not yet been explored systematically. Objective To explore disability policy stakeholder perspectives about FPPs as a feature of disability policy development and implementation. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 disability policy stakeholders (10 policymakers, 2 researchers, and 12 disability advocates) as part of a larger study about the development and implementation of disability-related policies in Zambia. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed using content analysis. Results Participants presented FPPs as a promising way to mainstream disability within the government. According to participants, the initial launch of the FPP structure was ineffective, with a lack of clarity about the structure and an initial cohort of FPPs that wielded minimal influence. The FPP structure has since been revised. Participants express promise that the improved second launch will achieve mainstreaming. Discussion Zambian disability policy stakeholders describe a disability FPP structure that is different from the models suggested for treaty implementation. Pre-established commitments to mainstreaming among stakeholders might have stimulated interest in following the cyclical development of the disability FPP structure, encouraging a whole-of-government approach to disability policy implementation.Background Since the outbreak of COVID-19, physical and psychological harm has been spreading across the global population alongside the spread of the virus. Currently, the novel coronavirus has spread to most countries in the world, and its impact on the public is also increasing. As a high-risk group in direct contact with the virus, medical workers should be monitored, and their mental health deserves extensive attention. The aim of this study was to explore the mental health of medical workers facing the novel coronavirus and the main factors affecting it. Methods The present cross-sectional study including 2,100 eligible individuals from 1,050 hospitals in China was conducted through the network platform powered by www.wjx.cn, a platform providing functions equivalent to Amazon Mechanical Turk. We used a self-designed questionnaire to collect demographic information and data on mental states, including gender, age (years), educational level, job rank, body and mind reaction, cognition of risk, and the judgment of the epidemic situation. Independent samples t-tests and one-way (ANOVA) analysis were carried out to compare the differences in the mental reactions according to the demographic and psychological states of the participants. Results There were 502 males (23.9%) and 1,598 females (76.1%). The participants reported feeling calm (39.1%), tense (63.0%), scared (31.4%), angry (18.8%), sad (49.0%), afraid (34.7%), optimistic (5.1%), impressed (65.0%), and confident (31.1%) during the epidemic. At the same time, the psychological stress responses of medical staff were significantly different according to the levels of exposure in their environments, duration and personal experience. Conclusions Prolonged exposure to the virus and intense work are detrimental to the mental health of medical care personnel. It is necessary to adjust work conditions and intensity according to workers' mental state flexibly and systematically.The common presenting symptoms of fever, fatigue, and mild respiratory symptoms like dry cough, are associated with COVID-19, however, patients can also develop neurological manifestations like headache, anosmia, hyposmia, dysgeusia, meningitis, encephalitis, and acute cerebrovascular accidents during the disease. Although very rare, these neurological manifestations are sometimes the sole initial presenting complaint of COVID-19. This case report discusses patients where the initial presenting symptoms seemed to be exclusive to meningitis but the later diagnosis was COVID-19. It is important to increase awareness of these rare presentations in physicians and healthcare workers and facilitate early diagnosis and management to prevent the horizontal spread of the disease.Objectives In health sciences, the Delphi technique is primarily used by researchers when the available knowledge is incomplete or subject to uncertainty and other methods that provide higher levels of evidence cannot be used. The aim is to collect expert-based judgments and often to use them to identify consensus. In this map, we provide an overview of the fields of application for Delphi techniques in health sciences in this map and discuss the processes used and the quality of the findings. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/ms-275.html We use systematic reviews of Delphi techniques for the map, summarize their findings and examine them from a methodological perspective. Methods Twelve systematic reviews of Delphi techniques from different sectors of the health sciences were identified and systematically analyzed. Results The 12 systematic reviews show, that Delphi studies are typically carried out in two to three rounds with a deliberately selected panel of experts. A large number of modifications to the Delphi technique have now been developed. Significant weaknesses exist in the quality of the reporting. Conclusion Based on the results, there is a need for clarification with regard to the methodological approaches of Delphi techniques, also with respect to any modification. Criteria for evaluating the quality of their execution and reporting also appear to be necessary. However, it should be noted that we cannot make any statements about the quality of execution of the Delphi studies but rather our results are exclusively based on the reported findings of the systematic reviews.