Impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic in foster care institutions from France, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and the UK: A rapid synthesis of online testimonials made by educational staff
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background and rationale: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is currently disrupting activities of foster care staff and the functioning of foster care institutions in France, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and the UK. Despite this, little details about the impacts of the pandemic seem to have found their way in the scientific literature. Similarly, although literature on respiratory outbreaks in children’s homes can be found, studies typically describe measures taken in limited details and focus on drug interventions, few report issues and challenges residential staff had to face and none apparently report how residential staff and residents felt or which resources they found helpful during outbreaks. Objective: To synthesize key themes emerging from online testimonials made by educational staff looking after children in foster care institutions during the Covid-19 pandemic. Methods: Scoping Google searches with keyword variations of “SARS-CoV-2”, “residential staff” and “foster care institutions” meant to identify testimonials from educational staff from institutions in France, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and the UK, published from 1 January 2020 to 8 April 2020, and written in French or English. Testimonials were then read in full and data related to 9 broad themes (measures taken, issues, concerns, needs, legal aspects, helpful resources, feelings, context and opportunities) was extracted and synthesized. Findings: 24 individual searches were made on Google between 6 April and 8 April 2020 (included) and a total of about 2370 website titles and website descriptions (“abstracts”) were screened for inclusion. Testimonials from residential staff were found on 43 different webpages. 32 testimonials came from France, 2 from Belgium, 2 from the UK and 1 from Canada. No testimonials from Swiss residential staff were found. 6 sources included testimonials already found in other sources (3 duplicate testimonials for France and 3 duplicate testimonials for the UK). Residential staff most commonly reported feeling anxious or stressed out; some were angry against authorities or felt hopeless. Children in care were said to be anxious, stressed out or sad, but in some testimonials they reportedly were doing well despite the pandemic. 119 unique measures taken in institutions were identified, most were organizational (19 measures), about social distancing (15 measures), hygiene (13 measures), focused on residents (11 measures) or other (26 non-categorized measures). Personal protection equipment, computers, volunteers, staff creativity or adaptability, staff solidarity, recreational activities and outside activities were identified as useful resources. The most common issues were related to inadequate supplies of personal protection equipment, unfeasibility of implementing social distancing measures, children eloping, staff shortage, risk of staff burnout, increase in violence, difficulties supporting residents to do schoolwork and insufficient communication with authorities. Residential staff was concerned about safety, well-being of the residents, their own, that of their families or relatives, the risk of staff shortage and staff burnout and educational outcomes for children in care. A few staff members pointed out opportunities brought by the pandemic, for instance an opportunity to strengthen relationships with residents. Limitations: Testimonials were often found in journal articles and journalists may have been incentivized to emphasize problems. The representativeness of testimonials found cannot be assumed and they may be a poor surrogate for the actual prevalence of problems reported. I may have inadvertently overemphasized needs given solidarity with colleagues. Data collection, classification and synthesis involved subjectivity. The trustworthiness of online testimonials is difficult to assess but reports from France, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and the UK appeared relatively similar. Conclusions: Not yet fully written, not yet summarized Funding: No funding was received for this work. Registration: See previous versions of https://osf.io/kx4g9/ Data and materials: See https://osf.io/kx4g9/ and https://osf.io/5bewk/ Keywords: Covid-19, residential care, foster care, children, social work, testimonials
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».