(1) Background: Vaccine hesitancy remains a major public health concern. The reasons behind this attitude are complex and warrant careful consideration, especially in the context of the COVID-19 era. The purpose of this study was to estimate vaccine hesitancy towards the established childhood immunization programmes in a non-random sample of Greek parents and explore possible links with important drivers of this phenomenon. (2) Methods: An online self-administered questionnaire was used from October 2020 to April 2021 to collect socio-demographic, lifestyle, and health status data and evaluate knowledge, views, and attitudes of the Greek population on COVID-19 pandemic-related issues. Parents were further asked to complete the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) questionnaire. (3) Results: A total of 1095 parents participated in the study with a mean age of 50 years (SD 9.5 years). The hesitancy against the established childhood vaccinations was estimated at 8.9% (95% CI, 7.3–10.8%). Married status and higher education and income were negatively correlated with hesitancy, whereas positive correlations were found for stress and depressive symptoms and current smoking. Variables related to proper awareness, sound knowledge, and trust toward authorities regarding the COVID-19 pandemic were strongly associated with being less hesitant against the established childhood vaccination programmes. (4) Conclusion: The estimated parental hesitancy against the established childhood vaccination programmes is worrisome. Variables related to good awareness and knowledge of the COVID-19 pandemic were strongly associated with being less hesitant against childhood vaccinations. Since controversy surrounding COVID-19 vaccinations may decrease parents’ confidence in routine childhood vaccinations, appreciating the complex reasons behind vaccine hesitancy may inform public health policies to overcome barriers and increase vaccine acceptance.

Background: Research on Roma health is fragmentary as major methodological obstacles often exist. Reliable estimates on vaccination coverage of Roma children at a national level and identification of risk factors for low coverage could play an instrumental role in developing evidence-based policies to promote vaccination in this marginalized population group. Methods: We carried out a national vaccination coverage survey of Roma children. Thirty Roma settlements, stratified by geographical region and settlement type, were included; 7–10 children aged 24–77 months were selected from each settlement using systematic sampling. Information on children’s vaccination coverage was collected from multiple sources. In the analysis we applied weights for each stratum, identified through a consensus process. Results: A total of 251 Roma children participated in the study. A vaccination document was presented for the large majority (86%). We found very low vaccination coverage for all vaccines. In 35–39% of children ‘minimum vaccination’ (DTP3 and IPV2 and MMR1) was administered, while 34–38% had received HepB3 and 31–35% Hib3; no child was vaccinated against tuberculosis in the first year of life. Better living conditions and primary care services close to Roma settlements were associated with higher vaccination indices. Conclusions: Our study showed inadequate vaccination coverage of Roma children in Greece, much lower than that of the non-minority child population. This serious public health challenge should be systematically addressed, or, amid continuing economic recession, the gap may widen. Valid national estimates on important characteristics of the Roma population can contribute to planning inclusion policies.

Leishmaniasis is a high burden neglected disease in the Mediterranean ecoregion, lacking surveillance attention. We aimed to provide an overview of the state of leishmaniasis surveillance in Greece, investigating the prospect of transitioning to a One Health surveillance system.

Background/Objectives: Despite global efforts, COVID-19 revealed severe spatial vaccine inequities, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Scholars across disciplines proposed numerous—and often competing—terms and theories to explain these disparities. In this review and within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we assess the usage, definition, and appropriateness of these terms and their linked theories or frameworks. Methods: We conducted a scoping review aiming to clarify key definitions, concepts, and frameworks of eight prominent terms used in the literature regarding COVID-19 global and/or regional vaccine inequities (i.e., vaccine nationalism, vaccine apartheid, vaccine colonialism, vaccine imperialism, vaccine racism, vaccine diplomacy, vaccine solidarity, and vaccine internationalism). The methodology followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines for Scoping Reviews and included papers from January 2020 to the end of October 2024. Results: We included 79 papers in our study. The majority (71%) were published in 2021–2022, with less than one-quarter authored by scholars from LMICs. Vaccine imperialism was consistently defined but rarely used, while vaccine nationalism and vaccine apartheid appeared more frequently with varied meanings. Yet, in most cases, all of these concepts identified economic interests of vaccine-producing countries as the root cause of the observed vaccine inequities. Vaccine diplomacy showed similar ambiguity, viewed by some as worsening inequities and by others as potentially mitigating them. The terms vaccine racism, vaccine colonialism, and vaccine solidarity were not explicitly identified but appear to be embedded within the definitions of other prominent terms detected. Conclusions: Across the preselected terms examined, we found numerous—and often conflicting—definitions, revealing the fragmented and competing understandings of the major drivers fueling global vaccine inequities. This lack of coherence inhibits evidence synthesis or shared theoretical progress but, most importantly, might undermine current and future efforts to address these inequities.

Introduction: Despite the well-documented benefits of smoking cessation interventions, the implementation and success of these programs in primary care settings often encounter significant barriers. A primary care provider’s personal smoking status has been identified as a potential barrier to tobacco treatment delivery. The aim of this qualitative study is to explore the experiences and perspectives of primary care providers regarding their role in delivering smoking cessation interventions to patients based on their personal smoking status. Specifically, the study seeks to examine providers’ thoughts, emotions, and behaviors concerning their own smoking behavior and to understand their attitudes and actions when supporting patients who smoke and to explore their perspectives on the effectiveness of training programs designed to promote tobacco treatment. Materials and Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 primary care providers from six public primary care units in the Central Macedonia Region, Greece. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data. Results: Healthcare providers who are current smokers may face unique challenges in effectively counseling patients on smoking cessation. On the contrast, non-smoking and especially previous smoking healthcare providers were noted to exhibit greater confidence and efficacy in delivering cessation support, often serving as role models for patients aiming to quit smoking. Participating in structured cessation training programs often led healthcare professionals to reflect and reevaluate their own smoking behaviors. Conclusions: Personal smoking status of primary care providers impacts the delivery of tobacco treatment, affecting their credibility and effectiveness in providing cessation support. Educational programs positively impact attitudes and behaviors, underscoring their importance in improving both PCPs’ professional effectiveness and personal health outcomes. These findings suggest that addressing PCPs’ smoking habits and enhancing training opportunities are critical for optimizing smoking cessation services.