Search

Background: Language barriers are one of the main obstacles faced by migrants in accessing healthcare services. A compromised communication between migrants and Healthcare Providers in vaccination setting can result in increased vaccine hesitancy and decreased vaccine uptake. The objective of the current study is to investigate Healthcare Providers' perceptions about linguistic barriers faced during both routinary vaccination practice and the extraordinary vaccination program for Ukrainian refugees in the Local Health Authorities of Bologna and Romagna (Italy)., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted through the administration of a questionnaire examining Healthcare Providers' perceptions. A descriptive analysis and a multiple logistic regression model were adopted to analyze the collected data., Results: Language barriers resulted as an obstacle to informed consent and to doctor-patient relationship. The strategies adopted were perceived as helpful in increasing vaccination adherence, despite communication difficulties were still experienced during refugees' vaccinations. Results suggest that the implementation of translated material and the use of professional interpreters may represent important strategies to overcome linguistic barriers, along with Healthcare Providers' training. Healthcare Providers' opinions could assist the implementation of new tools capable of countering language barriers., Conclusions: The current study represents an example of providers' involvement in understanding the complexities behind the issue of language barriers in vaccination practice.

Background: During 2020, COVID-19 had a diversified distribution in Italy, the first nation in Europe to experience the outbreak of the epidemic. This was linked to geographical differences in population density and distribution of healthcare facilities, including Emergency Departments (EDs). This study aims to assess the impact of the pandemic on ED utilization in 2020 across different subpopulations and geographical locations in Italy., Methods: We used anonymized data from a survey conducted by the Italian National Institute of Statistics on 25,000 families to analyze the yearly rate of people who used EDs from 2015 to 2020. The rate of persons who accessed ED services in 2020 per 1,000 population was compared with those of the previous non-pandemic years., Results: The number of people accessing EDs in 2020 was 32.3% lower, although this reduction was not uniform across the 21 regions / autonomous provinces. People aged 0-14 years experienced the highest reduction in ED visits. In 2020, low educational level people exhibited a steeper reduction in the use of EDs., Conclusions: This study shows a significant drop in EDs use especially by children; the population section mostly affected by the effects of the pandemic. This study also confirms that education and socio-economic status are important determinants of ED use. The heterogeneous reduction in ED use across the regions of Italy highlights the need to further investigate the impact of this pattern on the health of the population, as well as to define adequate preparedness strategies to face future emergencies.

Background: The COVID-19 vaccination campaign began in Italy at the end of December 2020, with the primary aim of immunizing healthcare professionals, using the EMA approved mRNA vaccines (Comirnaty® by Pfizer/BioNTech; mRNA-1273 by Moderna) and recombinant adenoviral vaccine (Vaxzevria® by AstraZeneca). The study aimed at evaluating the prevalence and motivations underlying Vaccine Hesitancy, as well as the incidence and type of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccination., Methods: Cross-sectional study. Data were collected January 1st to 28th 2021 using a purposely created online self-administered questionnaire from a selected cohort of Italian physicians., Results: Overall, 7,881 questionnaires were analyzed: 6,612 physicians had received one dose, and 1,670 two doses of Comirnaty®; 30 had received one dose of mRNA-1273. Vaccine Hesitancy rate was 3.6%; it correlated with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, diabetes, Adverse Eventss at previous vaccinations and refusal of 2020 flu vaccine, and was mainly motivated by concerns about vaccine Adverse Events. Typical Adverse Events were pain/itching/paresthesia at the inoculation site, followed by headache, fever, fatigue and myalgia/arthralgia occurring more frequently after the second dose (77.8 vs 66.9%; p<0.001), and in subjects with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection., Conclusion: Adherence to COVID-19 vaccination is high among physicians. Adverse Events are typically mild and more frequent in people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Abstract: Background. Vaccination is one of the most effective tools available to Public Health. Its potential usefulness is threatened by the rise of vaccine hesitancy among the general population, which has grown as much as to prompt the World Health Organization to express its concerns on the matter. The risk posed by vaccine hesitancy is even more concerning in the light of the efforts to curb the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which focus mainly on mass vaccination campaigns. This holds especially true when applied to healthcare professionals, among whom vaccine hesitancy can be particularly detrimental. For these reasons, our study focuses on potential determinants of vaccine hesitancy among healthcare professionals. Study design. The study is a cross-sectional study. Methods. Data were collected from January 1st to February 16th, by means of a self-administered online questionnaire in a cohort of Italian healthcare professionals. Results. Overall, 10,898 questionnaires were collected. Among the respondents, 1.1% expressed vaccine hesitancy. Hesitancy was less frequent in professionals involved in Primary Care and in the Clinical Scien-ces/Public Health group. Among clinicians, paediatricians, oncologists, and geriatrists showed especially accepting attitudes towards vaccination. Lower hesitancy rates were also registered among the respondents who already had received influenza vaccination and who never had any adverse effects following vaccination. Higher hesitancy rates were observed among individuals who had family members aged >65 years and with a history of severe adverse reactions to vaccination. Conclusion. Vaccine hesitancy rates were extremely low among participants in our study. Some medical specialties shown were particularly accepting towards vaccination. The potential predictors and protective factors pointed out by our analysis might allow more refined targets.

Context: Sedentary lifestyle is spreading among children living in urban settings. Recent studies in urban health investigated the effects of built environment on children's physical activity, focusing on the concept of "walkability", an index of how much an area is conducive to walking and active transportation. We decided to browse the literature in order to review all possible tools and methods by which walkability has been evaluated and measured., Methods: We conducted a qualitative review of the literature in agreement with PRISMA guidelines, searching three medical databases for papers published between January 1994 and July 2017. Inclusion criteria were: primary studies, population ≤18 years and exposure variable as an assessment of walkability or built environment., Results: We retrieved 1,702 articles and included 195 of them in the final review. Most of the studies were cross-sectional (n=188, 96.4%). We identified two possible approaches and four main tools to address walkability measurement. A subjective method approach was used in 71 studies (36.4%), an objective method in 87 (44.6%). Only 37 studies (19.0%) used both. Main tools were survey (n=70, 35.9%), Geographic Information System (GIS) (n=64, 32.8%), street audits (n=11, 5.6%) and Walk-score™ (n=3, 1.5%). Forty-six studies (23.4%) used mixed methods. Environmental variables' assessment and definition was found to vary greatly by method of choice., Conclusions: We found a high degree of heterogeneity regarding methods and measurements of walkability. A standard approach regarding tools and environmental variables' choice and definition will be advisable in order to allow comparisons among studies. Also, more longitudinal studies are needed.