Background and Objectives: Smartphone use has been rapidly increasing worldwide, which has brought possible smartphone addiction into the focus of research. In order to identify potential smartphone addicts, several scales were developed to assess smartphone addiction. Among them, the Smartphone Addiction Scale was frequently used. The study aimed to test the reliability and validity of the Serbian version of the SAS-SV and estimate smartphone addiction prevalence among medical students. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in December 2018 on a convenience sample of 323 third-year medical students. The cross-cultural adaptation was performed following the well-established guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of self-reported measures. Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the structure of the questionnaire. Factor extraction was performed by principal component analysis with Varimax rotation. For test–retest reliability, students completed the questionnaire twice within seven days. Results: The Serbian version of the SAS-SV showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89) and excellent reliability for test–retest scores (ICC = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.92–0.96). Factor analysis supported the extraction of one factor, which explained 51.538% of the variance. To explore convergent validity furthermore, the SAS-SV was correlated with time indicators of smartphone use. According to cut-off values for the SAS-SV score, 19.5% of students could be regarded as “addicted”, and often spent more time on smartphones and social networks on working days and weekends than “not addicted” students. Conclusions: The Serbian version of the SAS-SV is a reliable and valid instrument for detecting smartphone addiction among university students. Further research on this issue is encouraged to enable a better understanding of this ever-increasing public health issue.

Background: Currently, medical cannabis polices are experiencing rapid changes, and an increasing number of nations around the world legalize medical cannabis for certain groups of patients, including those in Serbia. Objectives: To determine medical students' attitudes toward medical cannabis legalization and to examine the factors influencing their attitudes. Methods: Fourth-year medical students at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, had participated in a cross-sectional study. Data were collected by an anonymous questionnaire. Results: Overall, 63.4% students supported medical cannabis legalization, and only 20.8% supported its legalization for recreational use. Students who previously used marijuana (p <.001) and alcohol (p =.004) were significantly more in favor of medical cannabis legalization compared with students who never used them. Support for marijuana recreational use was also related to prior marijuana (p <.001) and alcohol consumption (p =.006). Only cancer (90.4%) and chronic pain (74.2%) were correctly reported approved medical indications by more than half the students. Students who supported medical cannabis legalization showed better knowledge about indications, in contrast to opponents for legalization who showed better knowledge about side effects. Beliefs that using medical cannabis is safe and has health benefits were correlated with support for legalization, and previous marijuana and alcohol use, while beliefs that medical cannabis poses health risks correlated most strongly with previous marijuana use. Conclusions/Importance: The medical students' attitudes toward medical cannabis legalization were significantly correlated with previous use of marijuana and alcohol, knowledge about medical indications and side effects, and their beliefs regarding medical cannabis health benefits and risks.

Background/Aim. Prehypertension and hypertension are an important public health problem worldwide and although they can be modified, they are often a risk for cardiovascular diseases. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of prehypertension and hypertension and associated risk factors in the adult population (15+ years) of Serbia. Methods. The cross-sectional study covered 14,623 adult respondents, but 14,422 volunteered to measure their blood pressure according to a pre-defined protocol. A stratified two-stage national representative random sampling approach was used for the selection of the survey sample. Results. In 2013, 17.7% of Serbian population, aged 15 and over, was normotensive, every third (33.1%) person had prehypertension, and every second (49.3%) had hypertension. The standardized prevalence of prehypertension and hypertension was 40.6% and 34.5%, respectively; 57.8% of the hypertensive population were receiving medical treatment. Among those receiving medical treatment, 35.2% (36.4% males and 33.2% females) had a blood pressure within the normal range. According to the results of multivariate logistic regression analysis, independently significant risk factors for hypertension compared to persons with normotension were older age (50 and more) (p < 0.001), overweight (p < 0.001) and obesity (p < 0.001), moderate (p < 0.001) and large (p < 0.001) waist circumference in both sexes, and nonurban place of residence in females (p = 0.006). In females, independently significant risk factors for prehypertension compared to persons with normotension were older age (50 and more) (p < 0.001), overweight (p < 0.001) and obesity (p < 0.001), moderate (p < 0.001) and large (p < 0.001) waist circumference, but high level of physical activity was significantly protective (p = 0.014). In males, overweight (p < 0.001) and obesity (p < 0.001) were independently significant risk factors for prehypertension. Conclusion. Serbia belongs to countries with a high prevalence of prehypertension and hypertension. Our results emphasize the need for a new public health strategy for the prevention, detection and treatment of prehypertension and hypertension.

Background: Although the risk of sexually transmitted infections is far greater during vaginal and anal sex than during oral sex, increasing practice of oral sex and low rates of barrier method use will probably increase the relative importance of oral sex as a route of transmission for genital pathogens. Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate knowledge and attitudes about oral sex and sexually transmitted infections, as well as oral sex practices, both among heterosexuals and homosexual men and to compare those two groups. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, data were collected from consecutive sexually active male patients who ever had oral sex and who attended counselling for sexually transmitted infections at the City Institute for Skin and Venereal Diseases in Belgrade from March to June 2016. One dermatologist interviewed all participants. Results: The study included 359 men who ever had oral sex, 95 (26.5%) homosexual and 264 (73.5%) heterosexual men. In comparison with heterosexual men, homosexual men had considerably more lifetime sexual partners and oral sex partners during the past 3 months, and significantly more frequently practiced oral-anal sex. Oral-sex related knowledge of all participants was unsatisfactory [correct answers were given by 95 (26.5%) to 277 (77.2%) participants], but it was significantly better in homosexual men than in heterosexual. Frequency of condom use and human immunodeficiency virus testing was also significantly higher in the case of homosexual than heterosexual men. Limitations: The study was not performed in representative sample of population. It was restricted to the patients. Consequently it is questionable whether the results obtained could be generalized. Conclusion: Oral sex related knowledge deficits and risky oral sex practice exist in both homosexual and heterosexual men. These findings indicate a need for effective public health campaign and patient education about the risks of unprotected oral sex.

The epidemic control approach was based on non-pharmacological measures in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by vaccine uptake in the second year. Vaccine uptake depends on the individual attitude toward vaccination. The aim was to assess the changes in attitudes regarding COVID-19 vaccine protection during the pandemic and to determine the vaccination uptake concerning these attitudes. A panel study on COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and vaccination against COVID-19 was conducted in Belgrade, Serbia. The first survey was carried out in May–June 2020, and the second survey was organized in August–September 2021. During the baseline testing performed in 2020, 64.4% of respondents believed that the future vaccine against COVID-19 could protect against the COVID-19 disease, while 9.7% thought that it could not, and 25.9% were unsure. One year later, in the second survey, the percentage of participants with positive attitudes was slightly lower (64.7% vs. 62.5%). However, negative attitudes turned positive in 34% of cases, and 28.9% became unsure about vaccine protection (p < 0.001). Out of the 390 participants included in the study, 79.7% were vaccinated against COVID-19 until follow-up. There is a statistically significant difference in vaccination uptake compared to the baseline attitude about the protection of the COVID-19 vaccine. The main finding of our study is that the majority of participants who were vaccine hesitant during the baseline testing changed their opinion during the follow-up period. Additionally, the baseline attitude about the protection of the COVID-19 vaccine has been shown to be a potential determinant of vaccination uptake.