Vaccine hesitancy has increased in the past few years, influenced by the socio-cultural differences, political populism, or concerns related to the effectiveness and safety of some vaccines, resulting a feeling of distrust. This feeling can become a barrier against the achievement of the immunity necessary to stop the expansion of COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptance of the vaccine against COVID-19 in Spain, as well as to identify the factors that have an influence on the concerns and attitudes of people against accepting the vaccine in the months prior to the start of vaccination on December 2020. An online questionnaire was created to obtain information about (1) sociodemographic characteristics; (2) concerns and sources of information about vaccines; and (3) attitudes about vaccination and state of health. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the influencing factors. Of the 2501 participants, 1207 (48.3%) would accept the COVID-19 vaccine, 623 (24.9%) were hesitant, and 671 (26.8%) would reject it. The logistic regression showed that being male, older than 60, married, retired, with a high level of education, or with a leftist political inclination, could increase the probability of accepting the COVID-19 vaccine. Disinformation and the lack of political consensus were the main sources of distrust. The patients with hypertension, immunodepression, hypercholesterolemia, or respiratory disease, or were overweight, showed a greater acceptance to the vaccine, while those with cancer took the longest to accept it. A low acceptance of the vaccine against COVID-19 was observed among the Spanish population in the phase prior to its availability, and the main fears of the population were identified. It is necessary to offer correct and transparent information about these vaccines to reduce the concerns and increase the trust of the population, to thereby guarantee the success of the vaccination campaigns.

(1) To assess the efficacy of a specific rehabilitation protocol for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), patients who underwent hip arthroscopy (HA) were compared with a control group. (2) Patients with symptomatic FAIS who were scheduled for HA were randomized either to a control group (n = 45, 66.6% men, 41.8 ± 12.4 years) following a general post-surgical treatment protocol or to an experimental group (n = 45, 71.2% men, 40.9 ± 7.6 years) following a specific rehabilitation protocol supervised by a physiotherapist. Range of motion (ROM), orthopedic tests and pain were assessed immediately before surgery and at 4 and 14 weeks after surgery. The hip functional status was assessed by the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) before surgery and at the end of follow-up. (3) At 14 weeks after surgery and compared with the control group, the experimental group showed a lower percentage of positives for hip provocation tests (15.6% vs. 46.6% on Faber test; 15.6% vs. 77.8% on Fadir test; 2.2% vs. 20% on Ober test, experimental vs. control group, p < 0.001), a greater improvement in mHHS (27.2 vs. 10.7 points, p < 0.001) and higher ROM for all the movements evaluated: flexion (99.6 ± 12.2 vs. 89.6 ± 4.5, p < 0.001), extension (20.6 ± 5.8 vs. 13.3 ± 2.6, p < 0.001), adduction (30.6 ± 5.7 vs. 23.4 ± 8.4, p < 0.001), abduction (43.4 ± 10.7 vs. 32.8 ± 8.4, p < 0.001) and both internal (28.2 ± 8.5 vs. 18.7 ± 6.1, p < 0.001) and external hip rotation (36.8 ± 9.3 vs. 27.4 ± 5.6. p < 0.001). The pain decreased after surgery for both groups, although the reduction was greater in the experimental group at the end of intervention (13.8 ± 16.1 vs. 34.9 ± 16.3 mm, experimental vs. control group, p < 0.001). (4) The specific and supervised rehabilitation program in patients with FAIS undergoing HA showed better benefits at 14 weeks of treatment than the benefits achieved by a care protocol in terms of pain reduction and recovery of hip motion.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, physical therapists have had to adopt a set of specific protection measures, which have had an impact on their clinical activity and economy. The objective was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work of Spanish physical therapists, as well as their attitudes and predisposition to vaccination. An online questionnaire was divided into five sections: (1) demographic and professional data; (2) labor impact; (3) precautions and infection-control measures; (4) economic impact; and (5) vaccine acceptance and adverse effects. Of the 666 participants, 62.1% showed a reduction in their working hours motivated by: fear of infection (p = 0.007), financial issues (p = 0.002) and being in quarantine or isolation (p < 0.001). Of these, 36.4% were forced to close the clinic, 62.7% requested help from the government, but only 12.04% mentioned that it was adequate. The main prevention measures adopted were the use of gels and masks and, in the private sector, disinfection with ozone or ultraviolet light (p < 0.05). The acceptance of the vaccine was high, 87.5%, being lower among the group over 40 years of age, self-employed, widowed or separated. More adverse effects were mentioned after receiving the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, compared to Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna. In conclusion, this study assessed for the first time that the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain had a negative impact on work and finances of physical therapists. The vaccine was widely accepted, in part by the economic impact that an infection in the work setting could signify.

Background/Objectives: The aim of this diagnostic accuracy study was to evaluate the usefulness of transperineal ultrasound parameters of urethral instability for assessing the severity of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women and their relationship with health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Methods: This cross-sectional study included 240 women with symptomatic SUI (mean age 41 years). Severity was classified using the Sandvik Severity Index (reference standard). Transperineal ultrasound (index test) was performed to measure the retrovesical angle (RVA) at rest and during Valsalva manoeuvre, bladder neck descent (BND), and urethral rotation angle (URA). Impact on HRQOL was assessed with the ICIQ-SF and King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ). Operators were blinded to clinical data and vice versa. Results: The RVA at rest showed the best discriminatory capacity for identifying severe/very severe SUI (AUC 0.83, 95% CI 0.77–0.89; sensitivity 71%, specificity 84%), with an optimal cut-off value of 118.1° (adjusted for age, BMI and miscarriage). RVA values increased progressively with SUI severity both at rest and during Valsalva (p < 0.001). Significant positive correlations were found between RVA and ICIQ-SF scores (ρ² = 0.412 at rest, p < 0.001). In contrast, URA remained within normal limits (<20°) and did not differ across severity groups. Conclusions: Transperineal ultrasound measurement of the RVA at rest is a reliable, non-invasive parameter for grading SUI severity and correlates with its impact on HRQOL. These findings suggest that RVA at rest has good discriminatory capacity for identifying women with severe or very severe SUI and may have potential as an adjunct to clinical assessment. However, given the moderate sensitivity observed and the lack of data on management outcomes, prospective studies are needed to determine its utility in guiding referral or treatment decisions.