Objective To synthesise what is known about the parents’ views on factors that help or hinder breast milk supply during their infants’ hospitalisation in neonatal intensive care units (NICU). Methods A systematic search of PubMed, ISI WoK, PsycINFO and SciELO, targeting studies presenting original empirical data that examined parents’ perspectives regarding breast milk supply experiences in NICU, was performed. Based on content analysis, three independent researchers synthesised the findings of seven studies. Categories of facilitators and barriers were identified using quotations stated in the studies: parents’ breast milk supply experience; parents–professionals relationships; characteristics of the NICU; and parents’ social background and expectations. Results The studies, five qualitative and two mixed methods, were published between 1994 and 2011. With heterogeneous study designs, fathers’ perspectives were analysed in one article. Only one study defined breastfeeding. According to parents’ perspectives, successful breast milk supply in NICU depends on coherent and accurate knowledge about its techniques and benefits, reinforcement of mothers’ motivation and alignment between NICU's routines and parents’ needs. Parents perceived issues related to their own current breast milk supply experience, simultaneously, as main facilitators and barriers. Parents–professionals relationship constituted the second group of facilitators, but the fourth of barriers. The characteristics of the NICU were more relevant as a barrier than as a facilitator. Conclusions Although parents’ perspectives are grounded on individual child-focused experiences, their emphasis on learning and motivation guided by short-term goals opens room to the collective intervention of experts. This may facilitate the engagement of mothers, fathers and health professionals on family-centred care.

Introduction: In Portugal, health literacy has started to be addressed through national policies, but research on the topic is still scarce. We aimed to estimate the prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of limited health literacy in Portugal using an existing health literacy instrument, the Newest Vital Sign.Materials and Methods: Following cross-cultural adaptation of the instrument, a sample of 249 participants was evaluated to assess reliability and construct validity of the Newest Vital Sign; the latter was tested assuming physicians would score highest, followed by health researchers, then by engineering researchers and finally by laypersons from the general population. We applied this validated version in a representative sample of 1544 Portuguese-speaking residents in Portugal aged between 16 and 79 years and quantified the associations between limited health literacy and sociodemographic characteristics.Results: The instrument showed high reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.85). Health-related occupation showed association with higher scores in the Newest Vital Sign (p trend < 0.001). The prevalence of limited health literacy in the Portuguese population was 72.9% (95% CI: 69.4 - 76.4). We found no differences between men and women, but persons with limited health literacy were significantly older (p < 0.001) and less educated (p < 0.001).Discussion: The burden of limited health literacy in Portugal is higher than that in other European countries. It should drive a universal precautions approach to health communication at all levels of the health system.Conclusion: We validated a brief and simple instrument and estimated the prevalence of limited health literacy in the literate Portuguese population at roughly three out of four people.

This scoping review examines the research landscape about publics’ views on the ethical challenges of AI. To elucidate how the concerns voiced by the publics are translated within the research domain, this study scrutinizes 64 publications sourced from PubMed^® and Web of Science™. The central inquiry revolves around discerning the motivations, stakeholders, and ethical quandaries that emerge in research on this topic. The analysis reveals that innovation and legitimation stand out as the primary impetuses for engaging the public in deliberations concerning the ethical dilemmas associated with AI technologies. Supplementary motives are rooted in educational endeavors, democratization initiatives, and inspirational pursuits, whereas politicization emerges as a comparatively infrequent incentive. The study participants predominantly comprise the general public and professional groups, followed by AI system developers, industry and business managers, students, scholars, consumers, and policymakers. The ethical dimensions most commonly explored in the literature encompass human agency and oversight, followed by issues centered on privacy and data governance. Conversely, topics related to diversity, nondiscrimination, fairness, societal and environmental well-being, technical robustness, safety, transparency, and accountability receive comparatively less attention. This paper delineates the concrete operationalization of calls for public involvement in AI governance within the research sphere. It underscores the intricate interplay between ethical concerns, public involvement, and societal structures, including political and economic agendas, which serve to bolster technical proficiency and affirm the legitimacy of AI development in accordance with the institutional norms that underlie responsible research practices.