Brazil is among the countries which have faced two devastating infection waves of COVID-19 in the past year. Despite the fact the country has one of the world’s leading immunization programs, Brazil only slowly established a national COVID-19 vaccination strategy and campaign. This case study is based on an integrative review of primary and secondary literature sources. Different search strategies on Medline and Google Scholar were performed for the case presentation, for the management and outcome of the COVID-19 outbreak and for the state of the COVID-19 vaccination program. Official documents from the Brazilian Ministry of Health, the website of the World Health Organization and pharmaceutical companies were also reviewed. Searches were limited to English, French, German, Portuguese and Spanish. This article describes the Brazilian COVID-19 vaccination campaign and the drivers and barriers to its implementation; and evaluates further investigations needed to have a conclusive overview over the constantly evolving situation. Healthcare inequalities, which were widened during the pandemic, a lack of coordination at the federal level, the absence of federal government support for scientific research and the lack of endorsement and commitment to the mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic set the country’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign off to a challenging start. However, Brazil had a well-developed primary care system and national vaccination program prior to the pandemic, which are both important facilitators. At the time of writing, six vaccines are currently available in the country, and the program is advancing. The scientific community needs to continue to investigate the country’s vaccination strategy and its implementation to make sure that maximum effort is undertaken for the health of the Brazilian population.

Background: We aimed to assess the validity (criterion and cross-cultural validity) and reliability of the first occupational burnout (OB) detection tool designed for healthcare professionals in Belgium in the context of Swiss medical practice. Methods: First, we assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the Tool. We developed this tool based on the consultation reports of 42 patients and compared its detection to the results of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI), filled-in by patients before a consultation. Second, we performed an inter-rater reliability (IRR) assessment on the OB symptoms and detection reached by the Tool between a psychiatrist, two psychologists, and an occupational physician. Results: The Tool correctly identified over 80% of patients with OB, regardless of the cutoff value used for OLBI scores, reflecting its high sensitivity. Conversely, its specificity strongly varied depending on the OLBI cutoff. There was a slight to fair overall agreement between the four raters on the detection of OB and the number of OB symptoms. Around 41% of symptoms showed a substantial to an almost perfect agreement, and 36% showed a slight to a moderate agreement. Conclusions: The Tool seems useful for identifying OB of moderate and strong severity in both the Belgian and Swiss contexts.