Authentic leadership and the personal and professional profile of nurses

Objective: To verify the association of authentic leadership with the personal and professional profile of nurses. Methods: A correlational study, conducted in a tertiary hospital. Data collection occurred from October to December of 2014. Participants included 69 nurses who had worked more than two years in the institution. Instruments used: characteristic-containing variables of a personal and professional profile (sex, position, working hours, other occupations, specialization degree, leadership positions already held, and knowledge about leadership referential), and the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the - Student's t - test (p < 0.010). Results: For authentic leadership, 36 (52.2%) participants achieved a very high score, and 32 (46.4%) obtained a high score. The self-awareness subscale was higher: nurses averaged 1.7. Conclusion: Nurses presented characteristics of authentic leadership, but no association was found with many of the studied variables.Objetivo: Verificar a associação da liderança autêntica ao perfil pessoal e profissional de enfermeiros. Métodos: Estudo correlacional, realizado num hospital terciário. A coleta de dados ocorreu de outubro a dezembro de 2014. Participaram 69 enfermeiros com mais de dois anos na instituição. Instrumentos utilizados: caracterização contendo variáveis de perfil pessoal e profissional (sexo, cargo, horário de trabalho, outra ocupação laboral, curso de especialização, cargo de liderança já exercido e conhecimento sobre referenciais de liderança) e Authentic Leadership Questionnaire. Os dados foram analisados com estatística descritiva e teste t - Student (p<0,010). Resultados: Para liderança autêntica, 36 (52,2%) apresentaram escore muito alto e 32 (46,4%) alto. A subescala autoconsciência do Authentic Leadership Questionnaire mostrou-se superior, em média 1,7, dentre os enfermeiros. Conclusão: Os enfermeiros apresentaram características de líderes autênticos, porém não houve associação com muitas das variáveis estudadas.Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Escola Paulista Enfermagem, Sao Paulo, SP, BrazilUniv Sao Paulo, Escola Enfermagem Ribeirao Preto, Ribeirao Preto, SP, BrazilEscola Paulista de Enfermagem, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, SP, BrasilCAPES: 0088983440001-08Web of Scienc

Participação popular em um município do interior do Ceará: análise a partir da percepção de enfermeiros e gerentes da Atenção Primária à Saúde

This study analyzes the perception of nurses and PHC managers about the articulation of the health service with the community. This is a descriptive-exploratory study with a qualitative approach, whose participants were nurses and managers of the Family Health Strategy of a municipality in the interior of the State of Ceará. Data collection was carried out through semi-structured interviews and the analysis was carried out using the Bardin Content Analysis technique, supported by the N VIVO 11 software. The study respected the ethical principles related to CNS Resolution 466/2012 . The study reveals the adoption of different strategies by professionals to foster the role of users in social control. However, despite this, it is still possible to perceive the resistance of individuals to exercise their citizenship rights. Thus, it is up to professionals to strengthen the politicized bases of users.Este estudo analisa a percepção de enfermeiros e gerentes da APS acerca da percepção de enfermeiros e gerentes da Atenção Primária à Saúde (APS) no que se refere aos mecanismos da participação popular. Trata-se de um estudo descritivo-exploratório de abordagem qualitativa, cujos participantes foram enfermeiros e gerentes da Estratégia Saúde da Família de um município no interior do Estado do Ceará. A coleta de dados foi realizada por meio de entrevista semiestruturada e teve a análise feita por meio da técnica de Análise de Conteúdo de Bardin com suporte do software N VIVO 11. O estudo respeitou os princípios éticos referentes à Resolução 466/2012 do CNS. O estudo revela a adoção de diferentes estratégias pelos profissionais para fomentar o protagonismo dos usuários no controle social.  Entretanto, apesar disso, ainda pode-se perceber a resistência dos indivíduos a exercerem seus direitos de cidadania. Assim, cabe aos profissionais incentivar o comportamento participativo dos usuários

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic : relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis.Peer reviewe

COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey dataset on psychological and behavioural consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak

This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey - an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available.Measurement(s) psychological measurement center dot anxiety-related behavior trait center dot Stress center dot response to center dot Isolation center dot loneliness measurement center dot Emotional Distress Technology Type(s) Survey Factor Type(s) geographic location center dot language center dot age of participant center dot responses to the Coronavirus pandemic Sample Characteristic - Organism Homo sapiens Sample Characteristic - Location global Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data:Peer reviewe

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: Relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis

Examining the generalizability of research findings from archival data

This initiative examined systematically the extent to which a large set of archival research findings generalizes across contexts. We repeated the key analyses for 29 original strategic management effects in the same context (direct reproduction) as well as in 52 novel time periods and geographies; 45% of the reproductions returned results matching the original reports together with 55% of tests in different spans of years and 40% of tests in novel geographies. Some original findings were associated with multiple new tests. Reproducibility was the best predictor of generalizability—for the findings that proved directly reproducible, 84% emerged in other available time periods and 57% emerged in other geographies. Overall, only limited empirical evidence emerged for context sensitivity. In a forecasting survey, independent scientists were able to anticipate which effects would find support in tests in new samples

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Chemotherapy elicits pro-metastatic extracellular vesicles in breast cancer models

Cytotoxic chemotherapy is an effective treatment for invasive breast cancer. However, experimental studies in mice also suggest that chemotherapy has pro-metastatic effects. Primary tumours release extracellular vesicles (EVs), including exosomes, that can facilitate the seeding and growth of metastatic cancer cells in distant organs, but the effects of chemotherapy on tumour-derived EVs remain unclear. Here we show that two classes of cytotoxic drugs broadly employed in pre-operative (neoadjuvant) breast cancer therapy, taxanes and anthracyclines, elicit tumour-derived EVs with enhanced pro-metastatic capacity. Chemotherapy-elicited EVs are enriched in annexin A6 (ANXA6), a Ca2+-dependent protein that promotes NF-κB-dependent endothelial cell activation, Ccl2 induction and Ly6C+CCR2+ monocyte expansion in the pulmonary pre-metastatic niche to facilitate the establishment of lung metastasis. Genetic inactivation of Anxa6 in cancer cells or Ccr2 in host cells blunts the prometastatic effects of chemotherapy-elicited EVs. ANXA6 is detected, and potentially enriched, in the circulating EVs of breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis