Regulatory frameworks for artificial intelligence (AI) are needed to mitigate risks while ensuring the ethical, secure, and effective implementation of AI technology in healthcare and population health. In this article, we present a synthesis of 141 binding policies applicable to AI in healthcare and population health in the EU and 10 European countries. The EU AI Act sets the overall regulatory framework for AI, while other legislations set social, health, and human rights standards, address the safety of technologies and the implementation of innovation, and ensure the protection and safe use of data. Regulation specifically pertaining to AI is still nascent and scarce, though a combination of data, technology, innovation, and health and human rights policy has already formed a baseline regulatory framework for AI in health. Future work should explore specific regulatory challenges, especially with respect to AI medical devices, data protection, and data enablement.

Background: The provision of genetic services, along with research in the fields of genomics and genetics, has evolved in recent years to meet the increasing demand of consumers interested in prediction of genetic diseases and various inherited traits. The aim of this study is to evaluate genetic services in order to identify and classify delivery models for the provision of genetic testing in European and in extra-European countries. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using five electronic resources. Inclusion criteria were that studies be published in English or Italian during the period 2000–2015 and carried out in European or extra-European countries (Canada, USA, Australia, or New Zealand). Results: 148 genetic programs were identified in 117 articles and were delivered mostly in the UK (59, 40%), USA (35, 24%) or Australia (16, 11%). The programs were available nationally (66; 45%), regionally (49; 33%) or in urban areas (21, 14%). Ninety-six (64%) of the programs were integrated into healthcare systems, 48 (32.21%) were pilot programs and five (3%) were direct-to-consumer genetic services. The genetic tests offered were mainly for BRCA1/2 (59, 40%), Lynch syndrome (23, 16%), and newborn screening (18, 12%). Healthcare professionals with different backgrounds are increasingly engaged in the provision of genetic services. Based on which healthcare professionals have prominent roles in the respective patient care pathways, genetic programs were classified into five models: (i) the geneticists model; (ii) the primary care model; (iii) the medical specialist model; (iv) the population screening programs model; and (v) the direct-to-consumer model. Conclusions: New models of genetic service delivery are currently under development worldwide to address the increasing demand for accessible and affordable services. These models require the integration of genetics into all medical specialties, collaboration among different healthcare professionals, and the redistribution of professional roles. An appropriate model for genetic service provision in a specific setting should ideally be defined according to the type of healthcare system, the genetic test provided within a genetic program, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Only applications with proven efficacy and cost-effectiveness should be implemented in healthcare systems and made available to all citizens.

Vaccines are among the most important public health achievements of the last century; however, vaccine awareness and uptake still face significant challenges and the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated this phenomenon. Vaccine Literacy (VL) is the ability to find, understand and judge immunisation-related information to make appropriate immunisation decisions. A cross-sectional study on a sample of 3500 participants, representative of the Italian adult population aged 18+ years, was conducted in Italy in 2021. A validated questionnaire, including sections on health literacy (HL), sociodemographic characteristics, risk factors, and lifestyles of respondents, was used. VL was measured by four items (item 19, 22, 26 and 29) of the HL section. While 67.6% of the respondents had a “good” (47.5%) or “sufficient” (20.1%) level of VL, 32.4% had “limited” VL levels. Although the overall VL level was quite high, many participants reported difficulties in dealing with vaccination information, particularly those with a lower educational level, those living in southern and insular regions of Italy, those with greater financial deprivation and those with a migration background. Improving VL in Italy should be a top priority in the political agenda, with special regard to socially and geographically disadvantaged communities.

Introduction: The aim of the present study is to review the economic burden of varicella disease and the benefit of universal varicella vaccination in different settings pending its implementation in all Italian regions. Materials and Methods: Research was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and ISI databases. Score quality and data extraction were performed for all included studies. Results: Twenty-three articles met the criteria: 15 cost-effectiveness, 8 cost-benefit and one cost-utility analysis. Varicella vaccination could save the society from €637,762 (infant strategy) to 53 million annually (combined infant and adolescent strategy). The median and the mean quality scores resulted in 91.8% and 85.4% respectively; 11 studies were considered of high quality and 12 of low quality. Discussion: The studies are favorable to the introduction of universal varicella vaccination in Italy, being cost saving and having a positive impact on morbidity. The quality score of the studies varied greatly: recent analyses were of comparable quality to older studies.