Because of the limited success of population-based prevention methods and due to developments in genomic screening, public health professionals and health policy makers are increasingly interested in more individualized prevention strategies. However, the terminology applied in this field is still ambiguous and thus has the potential to create misunderstandings. A narrative literature review was conducted to identify how individualized, personalized and precision prevention are used in research papers and documents. Based on the findings a set of definitions were created that distinguish between these activities in a meaningful way. Definitions were found only for precision prevention, not for individualized or personalized prevention. The definitions of individualized, personalized and precision medicine were therefore used to create the definitions for their prevention counterparts. By these definitions, individualized prevention consists of all types of prevention that are individual-based; personalized prevention also consists of at least one form of -omic screening; and precision prevention further includes psychological, behavioral and socioeconomic data for each patient. By defining these three key terms for different types of individual-based prevention both researchers and health policy makers can differentiate and use them in their proper context.

Background The willingness to get COVID-19 or seasonal influenza vaccines has not yet been thoroughly investigated together, thus, this study aims to explore this notion within the general adult population. Methods The responses of 840 Hungarian participants were analysed who took part in a nationwide computer-assisted telephone interviewing. During the survey questions concerning various demographic characteristics, perceived financial status, and willingness to get the two types of vaccines were asked. Descriptive statistics, comparative statistics and word co-occurrence network analysis were conducted. Results 48.2% of participants were willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, while this ratio for the seasonal influenza was only 25.7%. The difference was significant. Regardless of how the participants were grouped, based on demographic data or perceived financial status, the significant difference always persisted. Being older than 59 years significantly increased the willingness to get both vaccines when compared to the middle-aged groups, but not when compared to the younger ones. Having higher education significantly elevated the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in comparison to secondary education. The willingness of getting any type of COVID-19 vaccine correlated with the willingness to get both influenza and COVID-19. Finally, those who were willing to get either vaccine coupled similar words together to describe their thoughts about a COVID-19 vaccination. Conclusion The overall results show a clear preference for a COVID-19 vaccine and there are several similarities between the nature of willingness to get either type of vaccine.

Background: Previous studies have investigated various factors that can determine the attitudes of the citizens considering genetic testing. However, none of them investigated how these attitudes may differ between the Visegrad countries. Methods: In this cross-sectional study a questionnaire developed by Dutch researchers was translated and used in Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia and Poland. In each country 1000 adult citizens were asked on the topics of personal benefits regarding genetic tests, genetic determinism, and finally, the availability and usage of genetic testing. Multivariate robust regression model was created including several possible influencing factors (such as age, sex, education, marital status, religiousness, and having a genetic test within the nuclear family) to identify the possible differences between the four countries. Results: The Hungarian citizens had the most positive opinion on the personal benefits of genetic testing followed by the Czech, Slovak and Polish. All differences were significant in this regard. Considering genetic determinism, the Slovak citizens had a significantly firmer belief in this issue compared to the Hungarians. No other significant differences were observed in this domain. On the topic of the availability and use of genetic testing the Hungarian citizens had the most accepting opinion among the four countries, followed by the Czech citizens. In this domain the Polish and Slovak answers did not differ significantly from each other. Conclusions: Significant differences were observed even when considering various confounding effects. As the underlying reasons for these discrepancies are unknown, future studies should investigate this enigma among the four countries.

Precision medicine carries huge potential in the treatment of many diseases, particularly those with high-penetrance monogenic underpinnings. However, precision medicine through genomic technologies also has ethical implications. We will define allocative, personal, and technical value (‘triple value’) in healthcare and how this relates to equity. Equity is here taken to be implicit in the concept of triple value in countries that have publicly funded healthcare systems. It will be argued that precision medicine risks concentrating resources to those that already experience greater access to healthcare and power in society, nationally as well as globally. Healthcare payers, clinicians, and patients must all be involved in optimising the potential of precision medicine, without reducing equity. Throughout, the discussion will refer to the NHS RightCare Programme, which is a national initiative aiming to improve value and equity in the context of NHS England.

Purpose: Decision-makers are looking for innovative approaches to improve patient experience and outcomes with the finite resources available in healthcare. The concept of value-based healthcare has been proposed as one such approach. Since unsafe care hinders patient experience and contributes to waste, the purpose of this paper is to investigate how the value-based approach can help broaden the existing concept of patient safety culture and thus, improve patient safety and healthcare value.Design/methodology/approach: In the arguments, the authors use the triple value model which consists of personal, technical and allocative value. These three aspects together promote healthcare in which the experience of care is improved through the involvement of patients, while also considering the optimal utilisation and allocation of finite healthcare resources.Findings: While the idea that patient involvement should be integrated into patient safety culture has already been suggested, there is a lack of emphasis that economic considerations can play an important role as well. Patient safety should be perceived as an investment, thus, relevant questions need to be addressed such as how much resources should be invested into patient safety, how the finite resources should be allocated to maximise health benefits at a population level and how resources should be utilised to get the best cost-benefit ratio.Originality/value: Thus far, both the importance of patient safety culture and value-based healthcare have been advocated; this paper emphasizes the need to consider these two approaches together.

Background: In 2020, globally 685,000 people died, and 2.3 million women were diagnosed with breast cancer. The main cause of cancer deaths among women is breast cancer, which account for 15.5% of all cancer deaths. Most of these could have been avoided with timely diagnosis.The aim of our study was to determine the proportion of breast screening participation in Hungary, and to identify possible factors that may influence breast screening attendance.Methods: Our data were gathered from the cross-sectional European Health Interview Surveys conducted in Hungary in 2009, 2014, and 2019. In terms of categorical characteristics, Pearson’s chi-square test was performed to evaluate the differences between people who have attended breast screening within two years and who have only attended more than two years ago. To determine the factors that may have an impact on the uptake of screening, generalized linear model with logit link function regarding binomial probability distribution was executed.Results: The responses of 2626 women between the age 45-65 were included in our study. In 2009 85% (n=741), in 2014 90% (n=851) and in 2019 87% (n=699) of the respondents claimed to have ever attended a breast screening in their life. In 2009 68% (n=594), in 2014 66% (n=630) and in 2019 64% (n=515) said that they have taken part in breast screening within two years (p=0.331). From 2014 to 2019 (AOR=0.72 [0.57-0.89]) the chance of attending breast screening was decreasing. We observed that both secondary (AOR=1.97 [1.60-2.44]) and tertiary educational level (AOR=2.23 [1.67-3.00]), higher perceived income (AOR=1.54 [1.25-1.90]), and more frequent meeting with the doctor (AOR=1.77 [1.39-2.27]) and with the specialist (AOR=1.88 [1.54-2.28]) appeared as protective factors of breast screening attendance.Conclusions: Our results show that the lifetime prevalence of breast screening participation is high, however the recommended biennial rate is relatively low. To increase the participation rate, various initiatives would be needed, especially for women in identified risk groups, which are lower educational level, lower perceived income, and less frequent meeting with the doctor and with the specialist.