[寻求庇护者庇护所中新冠肺炎大流行的管理:混合方法研究结果]

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Gesundheitswesen Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-10 DOI:10.1055/a-2144-5841
Amand Führer, Latife Pacolli-Tabaku, Paula Kompa, Yüce Yılmaz-Aslan, Patrick Brzoska
{"title":"[寻求庇护者庇护所中新冠肺炎大流行的管理:混合方法研究结果]","authors":"Amand Führer, Latife Pacolli-Tabaku, Paula Kompa, Yüce Yılmaz-Aslan, Patrick Brzoska","doi":"10.1055/a-2144-5841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Refugees in Germany are often housed in shelters, where their influence on the organization of everyday life is severely limited. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these shelters therefore had a special responsibility to take measures to protect the health of their residents. The aim of this research project was to examine how this task was managed and how the pandemic affected daily life in refugee shelters, with the aim to formulate recommendations for practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a mixed-methods study, the first step was a scoping review of the literature on the management of infectious disease outbreaks in refugee shelters. Building on the findings of the review, management of the pandemic was then explored in an online survey and in interviews with experts and residents of shelters. In a third step, the results of the preceding steps were summarized and discussed with a panel of experts. Recommendations for practice were developed with the expert panel in two discussion rounds two months apart.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The refugee shelters included in the study were inadequately prepared for the pandemic and often did not develop contingency plans until the pandemic was underway. In many cases, the contingency plans included the establishment of crisis teams, but the interests and perspectives of facility residents were generally not represented by these teams. This subsequently led to problems: Pandemic measures were often not communicated in a timely or sufficiently understandable manner, gaps in care resulting from measures were not identified or addressed, and psychosocial stresses associated with the pandemic and quarantine measures were not adequately mitigated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>• Refugee shelters should establish mechanisms to integrate residents' interests and perspectives into decision-making processes in a structured manner, regardless of the pandemic.• Depending on the type of shelter, this should be realized through resident involvement in decision-making bodies or other appropriate representation of interests. • Measures introduced during the pandemic that may have a negative impact on the psychosocial situation of residents should be terminated as soon as the epidemic justification for the measures no longer applies.</p>","PeriodicalId":47653,"journal":{"name":"Gesundheitswesen","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11003248/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Management Of Covid-19 Pandemic In Shelters For Asylum Seekers: Results From A Mixed Methods Study.]\",\"authors\":\"Amand Führer, Latife Pacolli-Tabaku, Paula Kompa, Yüce Yılmaz-Aslan, Patrick Brzoska\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2144-5841\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Refugees in Germany are often housed in shelters, where their influence on the organization of everyday life is severely limited. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these shelters therefore had a special responsibility to take measures to protect the health of their residents. The aim of this research project was to examine how this task was managed and how the pandemic affected daily life in refugee shelters, with the aim to formulate recommendations for practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a mixed-methods study, the first step was a scoping review of the literature on the management of infectious disease outbreaks in refugee shelters. Building on the findings of the review, management of the pandemic was then explored in an online survey and in interviews with experts and residents of shelters. In a third step, the results of the preceding steps were summarized and discussed with a panel of experts. Recommendations for practice were developed with the expert panel in two discussion rounds two months apart.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The refugee shelters included in the study were inadequately prepared for the pandemic and often did not develop contingency plans until the pandemic was underway. In many cases, the contingency plans included the establishment of crisis teams, but the interests and perspectives of facility residents were generally not represented by these teams. This subsequently led to problems: Pandemic measures were often not communicated in a timely or sufficiently understandable manner, gaps in care resulting from measures were not identified or addressed, and psychosocial stresses associated with the pandemic and quarantine measures were not adequately mitigated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>• Refugee shelters should establish mechanisms to integrate residents' interests and perspectives into decision-making processes in a structured manner, regardless of the pandemic.• Depending on the type of shelter, this should be realized through resident involvement in decision-making bodies or other appropriate representation of interests. • Measures introduced during the pandemic that may have a negative impact on the psychosocial situation of residents should be terminated as soon as the epidemic justification for the measures no longer applies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gesundheitswesen\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11003248/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gesundheitswesen\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2144-5841\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2144-5841","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:德国的难民通常被安置在避难所,他们对日常生活组织的影响非常有限。因此,在新冠肺炎大流行期间,这些避难所负有特殊责任,采取措施保护居民的健康。该研究项目的目的是研究这项任务是如何管理的,以及新冠疫情如何影响难民收容所的日常生活,目的是制定实践建议。方法:采用混合方法研究,第一步是对难民收容所传染病爆发管理的文献进行范围界定审查。在审查结果的基础上,在一项在线调查以及对专家和避难所居民的采访中,对疫情的管理进行了探讨。在第三步中,对前面步骤的结果进行了总结,并与专家小组进行了讨论。专家小组在相隔两个月的两轮讨论中提出了实践建议。结果:研究中包括的难民收容所没有为新冠疫情做好充分准备,而且往往在新冠疫情爆发之前没有制定应急计划。在许多情况下,应急计划包括成立危机小组,但这些小组通常不能代表设施居民的利益和观点。这随后导致了问题:流行病措施往往没有以及时或充分可理解的方式传达,措施造成的护理差距没有得到识别或解决,与流行病和隔离措施相关的心理社会压力没有得到充分缓解。结论:难民收容所应建立机制,以结构化的方式将居民的利益和观点纳入决策过程,无论疫情如何。根据庇护所的类型,这应通过居民参与决策机构或其他适当的利益代表来实现。在疫情期间采取的可能对居民的心理社会状况产生负面影响的措施,应在疫情理由不再适用时立即终止。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[Management Of Covid-19 Pandemic In Shelters For Asylum Seekers: Results From A Mixed Methods Study.]

Background: Refugees in Germany are often housed in shelters, where their influence on the organization of everyday life is severely limited. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these shelters therefore had a special responsibility to take measures to protect the health of their residents. The aim of this research project was to examine how this task was managed and how the pandemic affected daily life in refugee shelters, with the aim to formulate recommendations for practice.

Methods: Using a mixed-methods study, the first step was a scoping review of the literature on the management of infectious disease outbreaks in refugee shelters. Building on the findings of the review, management of the pandemic was then explored in an online survey and in interviews with experts and residents of shelters. In a third step, the results of the preceding steps were summarized and discussed with a panel of experts. Recommendations for practice were developed with the expert panel in two discussion rounds two months apart.

Results: The refugee shelters included in the study were inadequately prepared for the pandemic and often did not develop contingency plans until the pandemic was underway. In many cases, the contingency plans included the establishment of crisis teams, but the interests and perspectives of facility residents were generally not represented by these teams. This subsequently led to problems: Pandemic measures were often not communicated in a timely or sufficiently understandable manner, gaps in care resulting from measures were not identified or addressed, and psychosocial stresses associated with the pandemic and quarantine measures were not adequately mitigated.

Conclusion: • Refugee shelters should establish mechanisms to integrate residents' interests and perspectives into decision-making processes in a structured manner, regardless of the pandemic.• Depending on the type of shelter, this should be realized through resident involvement in decision-making bodies or other appropriate representation of interests. • Measures introduced during the pandemic that may have a negative impact on the psychosocial situation of residents should be terminated as soon as the epidemic justification for the measures no longer applies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Gesundheitswesen
Gesundheitswesen PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
308
期刊介绍: The health service informs you comprehensively and up-to-date about the most important topics of the health care system. In addition to guidelines, overviews and comments, you will find current research results and contributions to CME-certified continuing education and training. The journal offers a scientific discussion forum and a platform for communications from professional societies. The content quality is ensured by a publisher body, the expert advisory board and other experts in the peer review process.
期刊最新文献
[Community-based Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Promoting Digital Health Literacy among People in Precarious Living Conditions]. [Key Topics and Activities of Local and District Health Conferences between 2013 and 2022: Results of a Non-Reactive Online Screening]. [Participation in children's hospitals: approaches to participatory formats for paediatric patients]. [On the Potential of Prevention Counselors in the Primary Care Setting: Evaluation Study of an Intervention in the State of Brandenburg (Germany)]. ["The Show Must Go on": Medical Assistants and Their Experience Managing Vaccination during the Covid-19 Pandemic].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1