Purpose: To identify the effect of frailty and geriatric syndromes on the quality of life (QoL), of older adults receiving home care, taking into consideration their socioeconomic and homebound status, including multi-comorbidities. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled elders aged (≥65) years old, registered members of “Help at Home” programs in the Reference Region of Crete, from March to May 2019. Participants were screened using the WHOQOL-BREF for Quality of Life, geriatric syndromes such as frailty using the SHARE-Frailty Index (SHARE-Fi), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), for cognitive function and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), for the assessment of depression. Results: The mean age of the 301 participants was 78.45 (±7.87) years old. The prevalence of frailty was 38.5%, severe depression 13.6%, cognitive dysfunction 87.8% and severe comorbidity 70.6%. Intriguingly, none of the participants (0%) was identified as free of comorbidity (CCI = 0–1). The overall QoL (ranging from 4–20) of the study participants was 13.24 (±4.09). The bivariate analysis showed that overall QoL significantly differed among older adults with frailty (15.91 vs. 11.56, p < 0.001), cognitive dysfunction (15.42 vs. 12.90, p < 0.001), depression (14.90 vs. 9.31, p < 0.001), and disability in Activities of Daily Living (13.67 vs. 10.67, p = 0.002), compared to non-frail, normal cognition and depression, and independent elders, respectively. Multiple linear regression models revealed that frail and depressive elders reported significantly lower QoL (β = −2.65, p < 0.001 and (β = −5.71, p < 0.001), compared to non-frail and older adults with no depressive symptoms, respectively, despite the fact that this association was not significant for older adults with dementia (β = −2.25, p = 0.159), even after adjusting for potential confounding effects (age, gender, comorbidity, homebound status, etc.). Conclusion: frailty and geriatric syndromes including comorbidities are important risk factors for “poor” QoL among older adults receiving home-based healthcare.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent and multidimensional disease with symptoms that greatly influence patients’ health. Healthcare professionals utilize patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to classify and better manage the disease. Despite the value of PROMs, they inadequately represent some important dimensions of COPD, like social support and healthcare access/utilization. This is important, especially for social support, since it can positively influence PROMs results and the overall health of patients with COPD. Therefore, a scoping review was conducted to determine how social support affects PROMs of patients with COPD in primary care. The PRISMA–Scoping approach was adopted, and we sought articles published in MEDLINE and COHRANE. We screened 2038 articles for inclusion and finally included a total of 10 articles. Most of the articles were conducted in the U.S. and Norway. Social support had a strong positive impact on PROMs. Additionally, different types of social support were observed. Moreover, higher levels of social support were linked to better quality of life, mental health, self-care behaviors, self-management, functionality, and less severe COPD. Consequently, this scoping review highlights the value of social support in patients with COPD and its underrepresentation and misrepresentation in PROMs literature.

Purpose: To evaluate frailty and its relationship with geriatric syndromes in the context of socioeconomic variables. Patients and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, elderly people aged 65 years old and over who received homecare in the reference region of Crete, Greece, were enrolled. Geriatric syndromes such as frailty, dementia, and depression were evaluated using the SHARE-Frailty Index (SHARE-Fi), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), respectively. Level of education, annual individual income, disability in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and homebound status were also assessed as ‘socioeconomic factors.’ Results: The mean age of 301 participants was 78.45 (±7.87) years old. A proportion of 38.5% was identified as frail. A multiple logistic regression model revealed that elderly people with cognitive dysfunction were more likely to be frail (OR = 1.65; 95% CI: 0.55–4.98, p = 0.469) compared to those with normal cognition, but this association was not significant. Although elderly people with mild depression were significantly more likely to be frail (OR = 2.62; CI: 1.33–5.17, p = 0.005) compared to those with normal depression, the association for elderly people with severe depression (OR = 2.05, CI: 0.80–5.24, p = 0.134) was not significant. Additionally, comorbidity (OR = 1.06, CI: 0.49–2.27, p = 0.876) was not associated with frailty, suggesting that comorbidity is not a risk factor for frailty. In addition, patients with mild depression were significantly more likely to report frailty (OR = 2.62, CI:1.33–5.17, p = 0.005) compared to those with normal depression, whereas elders with an annual individual income (>EUR 4500) were less likely to be frail (OR = 0.45, CI: 0.25–0.83, p = 0.011) compared to those with <EUR 4500 per year. Conclusions: Our data analysis shows that higher annual individual income and mild depression were independently associated with frailty, suggesting that a lower poverty threshold and mild depression are risk factors for frailty.

We aimed to explore the link between social support and various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in primary care patients with COPD. This was a cross-sectional study with 168 patients with COPD from six primary care centers in Crete, Greece. We collected data on sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, disease-specific quality of life, the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), fatigue, the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), phycological parameters, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, General Anxiety Disorder-7, sleep complaints, the Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index, the Athens Insomnia scale (AIS), and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Social support was measured using the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). Out of 168 patients with COPD, 114 (68.9%) exhibited low levels of social support. Low social support (MSPSS total ≤ 5) was positively associated with COPD symptoms (CAT score ≥ 10) (OR = 3.97, 95%CI:1.86–8.44; p < 0.01), fatigue (FSS ≥ 36) (OR = 2.74, 95%CI:1.31–5.74; p = 0.01), and insomnia symptoms (AIS ≥ 6) (OR = 5.17 95%CI:2.23–12.01; p < 0.01), while the association with depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) was marginally significant (OR = 3.1, 95%CI:0.93–10.36; p = 0.07). Our results suggest that lower levels of social support are positively associated with PROMs in patients with COPD. Therefore, our findings show an additional way to improve the overall health of patients with COPD in primary care by putting social support at the epicenter of actions.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, and delayed detection contributes to poor outcomes. Primary care plays a crucial role in early diagnosis, but detecting lung cancer early remains challenging for general practitioners (GPs). Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to identify optimal strategies and pathways for lung cancer screening (LCS) in primary care settings globally. We conducted a scoping review by searching PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies published in the past 10 years. Our keywords included “lung cancer”, “primary care”, “early detection”, “screening”, “best practices”, and “pathways”. We included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies focused on lung cancer screening in primary care. We extracted data on study characteristics, screening pathways, and key findings. We identified 18 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Important strategies for LCS included the use of shared decision-making tools, electronic health record (HER) prompts, risk prediction models, community outreach, and integration with smoking cessation programs. Barriers to implementation included the lack of provider familiarity with guidelines, time constraints, and patient factors. Healthcare professionals and policy makers in primary care settings can leverage this information to integrate the most effective screening strategies into their care, thus enhancing early detection rates and subsequently reducing global lung cancer morbidity and mortality.

Background/Objectives: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) hold significant influence over public attitudes toward vaccinations. Studies suggest that HCPs are hesitant towards the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. This hesitancy could lead to lower vaccination rates in the community. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to assess the extent of hesitancy towards COVID-19 booster doses among HCPs and identify the associated factors. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in the PubMed and Scopus databases from April to August 2024, using keywords related to COVID-19, vaccine hesitancy, HCPs, and booster vaccination. Studies that had been peer-reviewed, published in English after 2022, and focused on the hesitancy of the COVID-19 booster dose hesitancy among HCPs were included. Out of the 6703 studies screened, 24 studies were included. Results: Most of the HCPs have received their initial series of COVID-19 vaccinations. However, there is a lower rate of uptake for booster doses, with hesitancy rates ranging from 12% to 66.5%. Hesitancy rates varied significantly across continents, with Asia, Africa, and Europe ranging from 19.7% to 66.5%, 27% to 46.1%, 14% to 60.2%, respectively. Hesitancy was reported to be influenced by various factors, including concerns about vaccine safety, necessity, and effectiveness of these vaccines. In addition, the hesitancy regarding booster doses was also found to be influenced by factors like age, gender, profession, and previous COVID-19. Physicians, nurses, and pharmacists exhibited vaccine hesitancy rates ranging from 12.8% to 43.7%, 26% to 37%, and 26% to 34.6%, respectively. Conclusions: Our review underscores the hesitancy among HCPs towards receiving booster doses across countries around the world and explores the underlying factors. These findings provide valuable insights for the design of future pandemic vaccination programs.