Summary, Conclusions and Reflections

The article focuses on the general principles regarding personal protection of people during a pandemic. The author indicates the difference between the concepts of an epidemic and a pandemic, characterizes civil protection, and specifies classification and possibilities of incorporating personal means of protection against biological infection. The text also highlights measures that contribute to protection of health and life of civilians as well as personal means of protection in the armed forces.The publication is based on the analysis of available literature on the subject. In the research process, the author used his many years of experience in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland (the chemical troops), including data gathered from simulation of conduct in CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear) contaminated environment.

The third and final discussion paper of the German Network of Health Services Research's (DNVF) "Qualitative Methods Working Group" demonstrates methods for the evaluation and quality of qualitative research in health services research. In this paper we discuss approaches described in evaluating qualitative studies, including: an orientation to the general principles of empirical research, an approach-specific course of action, as well as procedures based on the research-process and criteria-oriented approaches. Divided into general and specific aspects to be considered in a qualitative study quality evaluation, the central focus of the discussion paper undertakes an extensive examination of the process and criteria-oriented approaches. The general aspects include the participation of relevant groups in the research process as well as ethical aspects of the research and data protection issues. The more specific aspects in evaluating the quality of qualitative research include considerations about the research interest, research questions, and the selection of data collection methods and types of analyses. The formulated questions are intended to guide reviewers and researchers to evaluate and to develop qualitative research projects appropriately. The intention of this discussion paper is to ensure a transparent research culture, and to reflect on and discuss the methodological and research approach of qualitative studies in health services research. With this paper we aim to initiate a discussion on high quality evaluation of qualitative health services research.

Needs assessment remains an inexact yet evolving field of activity in palliative care. One reason for the variable quality of needs assessments in palliative care is the pragmatic orientation that comes from limited time and resources. Consequently a comprehensive approach to palliative care needs assessment is often not achieved. One route to its improvement lies in sharing experiences about techniques and methods in conducting needs assessment studies. In this paper we offer some thoughts on our own experience of conducting needs assessment for palliative care in three separate locations within a single English health region. We describe the context in which the projects were conducted; the background and origin of each study; the aims and methods used; the research process in each case; key findings; as well as the dissemination process and impact of the work. We show some of the different forms which palliative care needs assessment can take and conclude with some general principles intended to improve practice in this challenging area of health services research.

The aim: To find out the peculiarities of constitutional and legal principles of the limits of permissible intervention in conducting biomedical research with human participation. Materials and methods: The methodological basis of the study was worldview dialectical, general scientific and specific scientific methods of learning the phenomena of state and legal reality. Common ones were widely used in the work principles of scientific knowledge - comprehensiveness, objectivity, historicism, unity of theory and practice and others. The most important methodological prerequisite was a systemic approach to the issue of protecting human rights when conducting biomedical experiments with his participation, which made it possible to form a holistic view of the object and subject of research. With its help, the human rights affected by biomedical research in the context of the general legal principle of humanism were analyzed, the limits of permissible intervention in the human body were identified, and conclusions were drawn regarding the need for the separation and normative legal regulation of the complex branch of medical law. In the study, general scientific methods were widely used: historical, systematic analysis of the studied phenomena and syn¬thesis of the obtained results, inductive and deductive reasoning; special: formal-logical, sociological, statistical; and also private-scientific: comparative-legal, normative-legal, and others. Conclusions: 1) A key point in the mechanism of protection of the subject's rights in the process of conducting biomedical research is the establishment of a number of limits (maxims) that allow interference in the human body and can limit the researcher and protect the subject. These maxims should be integral elements of the process of biomedical research with human participation and determine the basic criteria for the protection of citizens' rights when conducting biomedical research. 2) The limits of permissible intervention in the conduct of biomedical research with human participation are the legal and factual consequences of the activity of bodies authorized to conduct biomedical research, which is based on the law and aimed at achieving the goals set by the researcher for conducting biomedical research with human participation, as a result of which the options for permitted by the norms of the law of behavior of the subjects of biomedical research by establishing various limits of such behavior, which necessarily have an exclusively temporary and subjective nature.

Instructions for prospective authors