Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly developing field with the potential to transform various aspects of health care and public health, including medical training. During the “Hygiene and Public Health” course for fifth-year medical students, a practical training session was conducted on vaccination using AI chatbots as an educational supportive tool. Before receiving specific training on vaccination, the students were given a web-based test extracted from the Italian National Medical Residency Test. After completing the test, a critical correction of each question was performed assisted by AI chatbots. Objective: The main aim of this study was to identify whether AI chatbots can be considered educational support tools for training in public health. The secondary objective was to assess the performance of different AI chatbots on complex multiple-choice medical questions in the Italian language. Methods: A test composed of 15 multiple-choice questions on vaccination was extracted from the Italian National Medical Residency Test using targeted keywords and administered to medical students via Google Forms and to different AI chatbot models (Bing Chat, ChatGPT, Chatsonic, Google Bard, and YouChat). The correction of the test was conducted in the classroom, focusing on the critical evaluation of the explanations provided by the chatbot. A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare the performances of medical students and AI chatbots. Student feedback was collected anonymously at the end of the training experience. Results: In total, 36 medical students and 5 AI chatbot models completed the test. The students achieved an average score of 8.22 (SD 2.65) out of 15, while the AI chatbots scored an average of 12.22 (SD 2.77). The results indicated a statistically significant difference in performance between the 2 groups (U=49.5, P<.001), with a large effect size (r=0.69). When divided by question type (direct, scenario-based, and negative), significant differences were observed in direct (P<.001) and scenario-based (P<.001) questions, but not in negative questions (P=.48). The students reported a high level of satisfaction (7.9/10) with the educational experience, expressing a strong desire to repeat the experience (7.6/10). Conclusions: This study demonstrated the efficacy of AI chatbots in answering complex medical questions related to vaccination and providing valuable educational support. Their performance significantly surpassed that of medical students in direct and scenario-based questions. The responsible and critical use of AI chatbots can enhance medical education, making it an essential aspect to integrate into the educational system.

We describe the epidemiology of New Delhi Metallo-Beta-Lactamase-Producing Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales (NDM-CRE) colonization/infection in a cohort of COVID-19 patients in an Italian teaching hospital. These patients had an increased risk of NDM-CRE acquisition versus the usual patients (75.9 vs. 25.3 cases/10,000 patient days). The co-infection significantly increased the duration of hospital stay (32.9 vs. 15.8 days).

(1) Background: vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) against seasonal influenza is considered the most effective way to protect HCWs, ensure patient’s safety and to maintain essential health care services during influenza epidemics. With the present study we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of incremental bundles of measures implemented during the last three flu campaigns and to assess the attitudes towards influenza vaccination and a potential vaccine against COVID-19 among HCWs, in a large university hospital in Pisa, Italy. (2) Methods: We described measures implemented during 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 and assessed their impact on flu vaccine coverage (VC) among employees and residents in Pisa university hospital. We considered sex, profession and ward to investigate differences in uptake. In addition, in 2020 a survey was developed and distributed to all employees to evaluate flu and COVID-19 vaccines attitudes. (3) Results: during the 2018/19 and 2019/20 flu campaigns the overall VC rate among HCWs was, respectively, 10.2% and 11.9%. In 2020/21 the overall VC rate jumped to 39.3% (+ 230.6%). Results from the survey indicated a more positive attitude towards flu vaccine as compared to COVID-19 vaccines among the 10.6% of the staff members who responded to the survey. In addition, 70.97% of HCWs totally agreed that being vaccinated against influenza would be more important than the previous years because of COVID-19 emergency. (4) Conclusions: a significant increase in VC was observed in 2020/21, especially among those sub-groups with consistently lower uptake in previous years. The COVID-19 pandemic positively influenced flu vaccination uptake during the 2020/21 season.

Vaccine hesitancy (VH) remains worldwide a reason of concern. Most of the vaccination education strategies followed a “fact-based” approach, based on the assumption that decision making is a rational process, without considering the influence of cognitive biases and heuristics. Our study aimed at identifying factors involved in the parents’ vaccination choice to inform and shape communication interventions. We conducted an online national survey among parents between November 2020 and April 2021. The questionnaire consisted of 42 items organised in 4 parts: (1) personal information, (2) cognitive biases and risk propension, (3) Analytic Thinking (Cognitive Reflection Test), (4) conspiracy mentality, health literacy, and VH. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify latent variables underlying the 19 items related to the 6 cognitive biases. Factors were categorised in quintiles and the corresponding pseudo-continuous variables used as predictors of the VH. Logistic regression model was applied to assess the association of the VH with factors, conspiracy mentality and risk propension. We adjusted for age, gender, economic status, and education levels. The study included 939 parents, 764 women (81.4%), 69.8% had a degree or higher level of education. Considering cognitive biases, four factors explaining 54% of the total variance were identified and characterised as: fear of the side effects of vaccines (scepticism factor); carelessness of the risk and consequences of infections (denial factor); optimistic attitude (optimistic bias factor); preference for natural products (naturalness bias factor). All factors were positively associated to VH (p < 0.001) as were conspiracy mentality (p = 0.007) and risk propension (p = 0.002). This study confirmed the need to amplify the model used to analyse the VH considering cognitive biases as important factor affecting the parents’ decision making. These results may be useful to design personalised communication interventions regarding vaccines and vaccination.

The decline in children's vaccination coverage and the resurgence of preventable infectious diseases draw attention to parents' vaccine hesitancy. Our study introduces two validated tools to independently assess vaccine hesitancy and health literacy among parents with school-age children. We developed a Vaccine Confidence Index (VCI) from 10 Likert items, exploring their relationships through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. We modified the IMETER (Italian medical term recognition test) to measure health literacy. We assessed the internal consistency of the modified IMETER and the 10 Likert items using Cronbach's alpha test (α) and McDonald's omega total coefficient (ω) with good results (ω = 0.92, α = 0.90; ω = 0.87, α = 0.82 respectively). We used these tools within a questionnaire conducted on 743 parents recruited from pediatric clinic waiting rooms in Italy, collecting demographic data, information sources on vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases knowledge. The VCI resulting from factor analyses consisted of six items on a ten-point Likert scale, reflecting the ratio of positive to negative items. The survey revealed significant variations in the VCI according to individual features such as education, use of social networks, or Health institutions as sources of information. Multivariate logistic regression identified an association between vaccine intention and the VCI. Health literacy was functional for 91.2% of participants, but knowledge about vaccine-preventable diseases was generally low. The VCI showed no significant association with health literacy and vaccine-preventable diseases knowledge. The VCI and the modified IMETER effectively assess vaccination attitude and health literacy, offering valuable public health tools for tailoring vaccination campaigns to hesitant population subgroups.

The introduction of new immunoprophylaxis strategies against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), such as maternal vaccination and the administration of monoclonal antibodies to newborns, presents both opportunities and challenges in terms of public understanding and acceptance. Monitoring online discussions can offer timely insights into perceptions of these interventions. We conducted a social media monitoring activity in Italy from September 2024 to January 2025, using the Pulsar platform to analyze posts on X and Facebook, complemented by manual analysis of comments on Instagram and TikTok. We examined content related to RSV prevention, focusing on stance, recurring narratives, and specific questions or doubts. Most content showed a neutral or supportive stance toward RSV immunoprophylaxis, with many users expressing awareness of RSV risk and interest in accessing the monoclonal antibody. However, recurring information needs emerged around eligibility, access, safety, and the distinction between different prevention options. Criticism toward the government was also observed, linked to initial decisions that limited free provision of the antibody to certain regions, later reversed, which left perceptions of inequality. Only a limited proportion of posts contained clear misinformation or disinformation. These results were consistent with recent surveys in other countries showing high parental acceptance of similar interventions. These findings underscore the need to address specific information gaps and ensure clear, consistent communication to support trust in RSV immunoprophylaxis. Proactive efforts will be important to reinforce the generally positive attitudes observed and to mitigate concerns that could affect the acceptance of new preventive measures.