• COVID-19
• Article close
• CA close
• English close
• NARCIS close
• VIUSpace close
• COVID-19 close

Abstract We examine how experience with two types of non-market risks (e.g., natural disasters and armed conflicts) changes foreign direct investment (FDI) decisions. Extending research on organizational learning and FDI, we hypothesize that the greater the experience with recent, frequent and high-intensity risk, the more likely that experience can moderate the relationship between non-market risks and firm international expansion. Given a sample of 625 Fortune Global 500 firms and their investments in 117 countries between 1999 and 2008, we find that experience with recent, frequent, and high-intensity risk can change a firm's FDI decision from risk avoidance to risk management.

Several Canadian and international scholars offer commentaries on the implications of the COVID‐19 pandemic for governments and public service institutions, and fruitful directions for public administration research and practice. This first suite of commentaries focuses on the executive branch, variously considering: the challenge for governments to balance demands for accountability and learning while rethinking policy mixes as social solidarity and expert knowledge increasingly get challenged; how the policy‐advisory systems of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and United Kingdom were structured and performed in response to the COVID‐19 crisis; whether there are better ways to suspend the accountability repertoires of Parliamentary systems than the multiparty agreement struck by the minority Liberal government with several opposition parties; comparing the Canadian government’s response to the COVID‐19 pandemic and the Global Financial Crisis and how each has brought the challenge of inequality to the fore; and whether the COVID‐19 pandemic has accelerated or disrupted digital government initiatives, reinforced traditional public administration values or more open government.

Five years ago, with the editorial board of Frontiers in Nutrition, we took a leap of faith to outline the Goals for Nutrition Science – the way we see it (1). Now, in 2020, we can put ourselves to the test and take a look back. Without a doubt we got it right with several of the key directions. To name a few, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for Food and Nutrition are part of the global public agenda, and the SDGs contribute to the structuring of international science and research. Nutritional Science has become a critical element in strengthening work on the SDGs, and the development of appropriate methodologies is built on the groundwork of acquiring and analyzing big datasets. Investigation of the Human Microbiome is providing novel insight on the interrelationship between nutrition, the immune system and disease. Finally, with an advanced definition of the gut-brain-axis we are getting a glimpse into the potential for Nutrition and Brain Health. Various milestones have been achieved, and any look into the future will have to consider the lessons learned from Covid-19 and the sobering awareness about the frailty of our food systems in ensuring global food security. With a view into the coming 5 years from 2020 to 2025, the editorial board has taken a slightly different approach as compared to the previous Goals article. A mind map has been created to outline the key topics in nutrition science. Not surprisingly, when looking ahead, the majority of scientific investigation required will be in the areas of health and sustainability.Johannes le Coutre, Field Chief Editor, Frontiers in Nutrition.

Objectives: Co-constructive patient simulation (CCPS) is a novel medical education approach that provides a participatory and emotionally supportive alternative to traditional supervision and training. CCPS can adapt iteratively and in real time to emergent vicissitudes and challenges faced by clinicians. We describe the first implementation of CCPS in psychiatry.Methods: We co-developed clinical scripts together with child and adolescent psychiatry senior fellows and professional actors with experience performing as simulated patients (SPs). We conducted the simulation sessions with interviewers blind to the content of case scenarios enacted by the SPs. Each hour-long simulation was followed by an hour-long debriefing session with all participants. We recorded and transcribed case preparation, simulation interactions, and debriefing sessions, and analyzed anonymized transcripts through qualitative analysis within a constructivist framework, aided by NVivo software.Results: Each of six CCPS sessions was attended by a median of 13 participants (range, 11–14). The first three sessions were conducted in person; the last three, which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, via synchronized videoconferencing. Each of the sessions centered on clinically challenging and affectively charged situations informed by trainees' prior experiences. Through iterative thematic analysis we derived an alliterating “9R” model centered on three types of Reflection: (a) in action/“while doing” (Regulate, Relate, and Reason); (b) on action/“having done” (Realities, Restraints, and Relationships); and (c) for action/“will be doing” (with opportunities for Repair and Reaffirmation).Conclusions: CCPS is an experiential approach that fosters autonomous, meaningful, and individually tailored learning opportunities. CCPS and the 9R model for reflective practice can be effectively applied to psychiatry and have the potential to contribute uniquely to the educational needs of its trainees and practitioners.

Objective: The primary objective of our study was to establish the prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms among professional football (ie, soccer; hereinafter “football”) players during the COVID-19 emergency period, drawing comparisons with players assessed before exposure to the COVID-19 emergency period. Design: Observational comparative cross-sectional study by means of electronic questionnaire. Setting: Professional football. Participants: A total of 468 female (mean age: 22.8 years) and 1134 male (mean age: 26.0 years) players participated. The non-COVID-19 comparison group consisted of 132 female (mean age: 23.1 years) and 175 male (mean age: 24.8 years) professional footballers. Intervention: N/A. Main Outcome Measures: Anxiety symptoms were measured with the validated Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 and depressive symptoms with the validated Patient Health Questionnaire 9. Both instruments have been widely used in both clinical and research settings among different populations, showing excellent psychometric properties. Results: During the COVID-19 emergency period, the 2-week prevalence of symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder and depression was 18.2% and 21.6%, respectively, among female professional footballers and 15.5% and 12.9%, respectively, among male players. The 2-week prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms among professional footballers was significantly higher during the COVID-19 emergency period than before the global pandemic (P< 0.01). Differences were most pronounced for those worried about the playing future. Conclusions: The COVID-19 emergency period is associated with increased symptoms of anxiety and depression in professional footballers, especially among those worried about their future as players.

We determined the presence of neutralizing antibodies to Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in persons in Qatar with and without dromedary contact. Antibodies were only detected in those with contact, suggesting dromedary exposure as a risk factor for infection. Findings also showed evidence for substantial underestimation of the infection in populations at risk in Qatar.