This article examines the impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic on recent UK graduates' initial employment outcomes and how they experience the transition into a challenging labour market context. We draw on longitudinal survey and interview data, collected from recent graduates who had mainly graduated during the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic in summer 2020 that examines graduate perception of the labour market, impacts on labour market entry impacts and early career progression and effects of periods of unemployment or under‐employment. The article shows some of the main impacts of the recent pandemic‐affected labour market, including: widespread concerns about job opportunities and employer support, the perceived employment impacts of the pandemic and early signs of scarring and labour market disorientation amongst those who were struggling to find employment of their choice. Such experiences are clearly intensified during the specific COVID‐19 context, but the policy implications they raise have wider relevance for supporting graduates during future periods of labour market volatility.

Background: In combination with non-pharmacological interventions, opioids may safely reduce chronic breathlessness in patients with severe illness. However, implementation in clinical practice varies. Aim: To synthesise the published literature regarding health professionals’, patients’ and families’ views on the use of opioids for chronic breathlessness, identifying issues which influence implementation in clinical practice. Design: Systematic review and synthesis using the five-stage framework synthesis method. Data sources: Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase via OVID, ASSIA via Proquest) were searched (March 2020) using a predefined search strategy. Studies were also citation chained from key papers. Papers were screened against a priori eligibility criteria. Data were extracted from included studies using the framework synthesis method. Qualitative and quantitative data were synthesised using the pillar process. Included studies were critically appraised using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Results: After de-duplication, 843 papers were identified. Following screening, 22 studies were included. Five themes were developed: (i) clinician/patient characteristics, (ii) education/knowledge/experience, (iii) relationship between clinician/family, (iv) clinician/patient fear of opioids and (v) regulatory issues. Conclusions: There are significant barriers and enablers to the use of opioids for the symptomatic reduction of chronic breathlessness based on the knowledge, views and attitudes of clinicians, patients and families. Clinicians’ interactions with patients and their families strongly influences adherence with opioid treatment regimens for chronic breathlessness. Clinicians’, patients’ and families’ knowledge about the delicate balance between benefits and risks is generally poor. Education for all, but particularly clinicians, is likely to be a necessary (but insufficient) factor for improving implementation in practice.

This article addresses feminist solidarity between a daughter and a mother in academia. We are respectively a PhD student and aspirant early career academic, and a senior academic, both identifying as feminists and engaging in forms of activism to improve gender equality. We take an autoethnographical approach, drawing from vignettes and conversational dialogues, focusing on feminist perspectives, activism, our contested identities, fears and hopes. We reflect on the challenges of living feminist lives whilst working in gendered university institutions and highlight strategies to enact feminism whilst trying to progress and maintain an academic career at different positions on the career spectrum. Our contribution is to highlight differential experiences and understandings of academic activism between daughter and mother, early-career academics and senior leaders, in order to enhance mutual understanding and action on feminist solidarity and praxis in the academy.

Reliance on fixed-term contracts and a lack of adequate maternity provision for fixed-term workers could be contributing to the loss of women from academia-the so called "leaky pipeline"-but evidence on this is lacking. This paper describes variation, between research intensive universities in the UK, in the maternity provision they offer to fixed-term workers and presents preliminary staff data on the likelihood of returning to work following a period of maternity leave for academic and non-academic staff on fixed-term versus open-ended contracts. A gendered lens is applied, investigating how the intersection between contractual status and maternity provision contributes to gender inequality in academia within the context of hierarchical neoliberal academic organizing and the masculinized "ideal" academic.