The effectiveness of a cancer screening program relies on its adherence rate. Health literacy (HL) has been investigated among the factors that could influence such participation, but the findings are not always consistent. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence between having an adequate level of HL (AHL) and adherence to cancer screening programs. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Cross-sectional studies, conducted in any country, that provided raw data, unadjusted or adjusted odds ratio (OR) on the associations of interest were included. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Inverse-variance random effects methods were used to produce pooled ORs and their associated confidence interval (CI) stratified by time interval (e.g., undergoing screening in the last period, or at least once during lifetime) for each cancer type, considering unadjusted and adjusted estimates separately. A sensitivity analysis was performed for those studies providing more estimates. Overall, 15 articles of average-to-good quality were pooled. We found a significant association between AHL and higher screening participation for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer, independently of other factors, both overall (N = 7, aOR = 1.73; 95% CI: 1.27-2.36; N = 3, aOR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.30-2.09; and N = 5, aOR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.12-1.39, respectively) and in most time-stratified analyses. The sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. Health literacy seems to be critical for an effective cancer prevention. Given the high prevalence of illiterate people across the world, a long-term action plan is needed.

Background: During the intensive care units’ (ICUs) reorganization that was forced by the COVID-19 emergency, attention to traditional infection control measures may have been reduced. Nevertheless, evidence on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) is still limited and mixed. In this study, we estimated the pandemic impact on HAI incidence and investigated the HAI type occurring in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Patients admitted to the main ICU of the Umberto I teaching hospital of Rome from March 1st and April 4th 2020 were compared with patients hospitalized in 2019. We assessed the association of risk factors and time-to-first event through multivariable Fine and Grey’s regression models, that consider the competitive risk of death on the development of HAI (Model 1) or device related-HAI (dr-HAI, Model 2) and provide estimates of the sub-distribution hazard ratio (SHR) and its associated confidence interval (CI). A subgroup analysis was performed on the 2020 cohort. Results: Data from 104 patients were retrieved. Overall, 59 HAIs were recorded, 32 of which occurred in the COVID-19 group. Patients admitted in 2020 were found to be positively associated with both HAI and dr-HAI onset (SHR: 2.66, 95% CI 1.31–5.38, and SHR: 10.0, 95% CI 1.84–54.41, respectively). Despite being not confirmed at the multivariable analysis, a greater proportion of dr-HAIs seemed to occur in COVID-19 patients, especially ventilator-associated pneumonia, and catheter-related urinary tract infections. Conclusions: We observed an increase in the incidence of patients with HAIs, especially dr-HAIs, mainly sustained by COVID-19 patients. A greater susceptibility of these patients to device-related infections was hypothesized, but further studies are needed.

Background: Migrants and ethnic minorities have suffered a disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the general population from different perspectives. Our aim was to assess specifically their risk of infection in the 53 countries belonging to the World Health Organization European Region, during the first year of the pandemic.Methods: We conducted a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42021247326). We searched multiple databases for peer-reviewed literature, published on Medline, Embase, Scisearch, Biosis and Esbiobase in 2020 and preprints from PubMed up to 29/03/2021. We included cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, intervention, case-series, prevalence or ecological studies, reporting the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among migrants, refugees, and ethnic minorities.Results: Among the 1905 records screened, 25 met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. We found that migrants and ethnic minorities during the first wave of the pandemic were at increased exposure and risk of infection and were disproportionately represented among COVID-19 cases. However, the impact of COVID-19 on minorities does not seem homogeneous, since some ethnic groups seem to be more at risk than others. Risk factors include high-risk occupations, overcrowded accommodations, geographic distribution, social deprivation, barriers to access to information concerning preventive measures (due to the language barrier or to their marginality), together with biological and genetic susceptibilities.Conclusions: Although mixed methods studies will be required to fully understand the complex interplay between the various biological, social, and cultural factors underlying these findings, the impact of structural determinants of health is evident. Our findings corroborate the need to collect migration and ethnicity-disaggregated data and contribute to advocacy for inclusive policies and programmatic actions tailored to reach migrants and ethnic minorities.

Achieving high levels of vaccination coverage against COVID-19 may be hindered by vaccine hesitancy. We quantified over time the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among university students, investigated its determinants, and analyzed student attitudes, risk perceptions and compliance with preventive measures. The survey was administered online from 1 March to 30 June 2021. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to identify predictors of hesitancy. Overall, we collected 5369 questionnaires that were grouped into three survey periods (March, April–May, and May–June). The response rate ranged from 81.2% to 76.4%, whereas vaccine hesitancy ranged from 22% to 29%. Multivariable analysis showed that April–May participants had higher odds of hesitancy than March respondents. Other positive predictors were being male, not being a healthcare student, having a lower academic level, and not disclosing a political position. Conversely, higher levels of perceived COVID-19 severity, concern for the emergency, confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness, and self-reported adherence to mask wearing indoors and outdoors were negatively associated with hesitancy. We found that vaccine hesitancy changed over time and in relation to several factors. Strategies aimed at increasing the students’ awareness and engagement, restoring confidence in health authorities, and limiting disinformation around the vaccines should be devised.

Despite health literacy (HL) being recognized as a driver of health-promoting behavior, its influence on the vaccination decision-making process remains unclear. This study summarized current evidence on the association between HL and both intention to vaccinate and vaccination status. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, retrieving observational studies published until January 2022 that used HL-validated tools to investigate the above associations for any vaccine. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Twenty-one articles were included; of these, six investigated the intention to vaccinate and the remainder vaccination status. Articles on intention looked at SARS-CoV-2 vaccination using heterogeneous HL tools and were of high/fair quality. Vaccination status, mainly for influenza or pneumococcal vaccines, was explored using various HL tools; the quality was generally high. We found inconsistent results across and within vaccine types, with no clear conclusion for either vaccination intention or status. A weak but positive association was reported between a high HL level and influenza vaccination uptake for individuals aged more than 65 years. HL did not seem to significantly influence behavior towards vaccination. Differences in the methods used might explain these results. Further research is needed to investigate the role of HL in the vaccination decision-making process.

This review aims to evaluate the efficacy of any vitamin administration(s) in preventing and managing COVID-19 and/or long-COVID. Databases were searched up to May 2023 to identify randomized clinical trials comparing data on the effects of vitamin supplementation(s) versus placebo or standard of care on the two conditions of interest. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all-cause mortality between supplemented and non-supplemented individuals. Overall, 37 articles were included: two regarded COVID-19 and long-COVID prevention and 35 records the COVID-19 management. The effects of vitamin D in preventing COVID-19 and long-COVID were contrasting. Similarly, no conclusion could be drawn on the efficacy of multivitamins, vitamin A, and vitamin B in COVID-19 management. A few positive findings were reported in some vitamin C trials but results were inconsistent in most outcomes, excluding all-cause mortality (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72–0.97). Vitamin D results were mixed in most aspects, including mortality, in which benefits were observed in regular administrations only (RR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49–0.91). Despite some benefits, results were mostly contradictory. Variety in recruitment and treatment protocols might explain this heterogeneity. Better-designed studies are needed to clarify these vitamins’ potential effects against SARS-CoV-2.