Search

Background: In Europe, Public Health Residents (PHR) have participated in the response against COVID-19.The pandemic has had a profound mental health (MH) impact on healthcare workers, but little evidence has been accrued about the Public Health (PH) workforce.The current study aims at assessing prevalence and risk factors for pandemic-related depression (D), anxiety (A) and stress (S). Methods: Between March 22 and April 11, 2021 we administered an online survey to PHR from France, Italy, Portugal and Spain, recruited through the national associations of PHR.We collected socio-demographic data and assessed changes in the working conditions due to COVID-19.We used the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21.Cut-off scores for D, A and S were: 9, 7, and 14.Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to determine risk factors for pandemic-related MH outcomes.Data analysis was performed with SPSS version 27. Results: 443 out of approximately 2000 PHR completed the survey, response rate: 22.15%. Most responders (n=226; 51%) were from Italy, 87 (19.6%) from Portugal, 74 (16.47%) from Spain and 56 (12.6%) from France. Median age: 29 years (IQR 25 33). Female/male ratio: 1.6. PHR above the cut-offs for D, A and S were: 60.5%, 43.1%, 61.2%.DASS-21 scores were 13.3 (± 10.27), 8.13 (± 7.79), 19.06 (± 9.71), respectively.Across the multivariable logistic regression models, the main identified predictors were: for D - the COVID-19 impact on PH training (OR 1.78, 95% CI [1.12-2.80], p=0.014); for A - the loss of research opportunities (OR 1.94, 95% CI [1.28-2.93], p=0.002) and for psychological S - the year of residency (last year vs other years of residency: OR 2.3, 95% CI [1.204.38], p=0.012). Conclusions: Our sample featured mild-to-moderate levels of prevalent D, A and moderate levels of psychological stress.Overall, the main risk factors associated with negative psychometric outcomes were training challenges, loss of research opportunities and residency seniority. Key messages: During the pandemic it is vital to increase knowledge and awareness about the impact of the health emergency on mental health in the Public Health workforce. It is important to deploy concrete efforts into building healthy work environments, guarantee adequate training and research opportunities for Public Health Residents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Vaccine hesitancy is relevant for healthcare professionals (HCPs) who face challenges in building trusting relationships with patients. Accordingly, the VAX-TRUST project has been developed to improve experiences of HCPs and patients dealing with vaccinations. To support VAX-TRUST, this work aimed to identify latest interventions targeted at HCPs to address hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake., Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA by searching PubMed, Scopus and Embase. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Articles were eligible if evaluated interventions directly targeted at HCPs/healthcare students. The search was run on 26 January 2022. Articles published in 2016 or after were included., Results: A total of 17 492 records were identified; 139 articles were selected. Most articles were set in USA (n = 110). Over half had a pre-post design without a control group (n = 78). A total of 41 articles focused on single-component interventions, 60 on multi-component interventions involving only HCPs and/or students and 38 on multi-component interventions involving also other professionals. Main components were in-person education (n = 76), synchronous (n = 10) and asynchronous (n = 23) online learning, educational materials (n = 26), performance assessment and feedback (n = 33), electronic record changes (n = 30), role play/simulation (n = 21) and online games/apps (n = 5). Educational sessions were mainly about scientific update or communication. Outcomes of interventions were grouped in: vaccination rates (n = 69), knowledge (n = 32), attitudes (n = 26), confidence in counselling (n = 30) and acceptability (n = 16)., Conclusions: Apps, gaming, role play/simulations could represent innovative interventions. This review highlighted the need of delving into communication strategies and using more robust evaluations, longer follow-up and standardized measurements., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.)

Background: The cardiovascular risk increases in a multiplicative way when patients present more risk factors simultaneously. Moreover, the General Practitioners (GPs) play a crucial role in risk factors prevention and reduction. This work aimed to evaluate a multicomponent intervention in the Primary Care Department in an Italian Local Health Unit., Methods: A pre-post study was conducted in Northern Italy (2018). Patients were eligible if: aged between 30 and 60 years, not chronic patients, not affected by hypertension or hypercholesterolaemia. The GPs assessed body mass index, hypertension, abdominal obesity, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) values, glycaemic values, smoking and exercise habit (T0). A counselling by GPs to at-risk patients and a multicomponent health education intervention were performed. Reassessment occurred after at least 3 months (T1). Main analyses were chi-squared tests for gender differences, McNemar or marginal homogeneity tests for changes in paired data (P < 0.05 as significant)., Results: Participants were 5828 at T0 (54.0% females) and 4953 at T1 (53.4% females). At T0, 99.1% presented at least one risk factor. Significant changes in paired data were reported for each risk factor. The greatest improvement frequencies occurred in glycaemia values (51.0%) and hypertension (45.6%), the lowest in abdominal obesity (3.7%). Some differences were recorded between genders, e.g. females reported higher improvement frequencies in hypertension (P = 0.001) and abdominal obesity (P < 0.001), whereas males in physical activity (P = 0.011) and LDL values (P = 0.032)., Conclusion: The results showed significant changes for each risk factor, both for men and women. GPs and multicomponent educational interventions could play a key role in reducing cardiovascular risk factors., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.)

Background: The age around 50 years represents a crucial point for women: menopause leads to biological changes and it begins breast and colon-rectal cancer screening. This study aimed at assessing frequencies of cardiovascular risk factors and analyzing participation in screening and vaccination., Methods: In 2017, a cross-sectional study was performed in Northern Italy. Totally, 12 249 women, aged between 50 and 54 years, were enrolled by General Practitioners (GPs). It was used a 21-item form, with information about: socio-demographic, anamnestic and clinical data, execution of a booster shot of tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine in the last decade and of PAP-test, mammography and faecal occult blood test in the last 2 years. Descriptive and crosstab χ2 analyses were performed with STATA MP13. The significance level was P ≤ 0.05., Results: Our findings showed the presence of cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity (10.95%), hypertension (13.76%), hyperlipidaemia (11.57%), glycaemia ≥ 100 mg dl-1 (16.97%), poor physical activity (73.49%), smoking (18.28%), cardiovascular family history (FH) (51.70%). There were a lower participation in colo-rectal cancer screening (45.09%) compared with breast (85.06%) and cervical (77.16%) cancer screening and an insufficient Tdap booster dose compliance (17.56%). Chi-square analyses showed correlations between cardiovascular FH and body mass index, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, glycaemia and smoking, and between cancer FH and participation in breast and colo-rectal cancer screening (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: Women with cardiovascular disease FH represent a priority target of educational interventions considering the prevalence of concomitant risk factors. Programmes aimed at increasing screening and vaccination participation should be implemented., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.)