Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform primary care by reducing the considerable bureaucratic burden. However, clinicians and patients share concerns regarding data privacy, security, and potential biases in AI algorithms. Objective: This study aimed to provide an in-depth understanding of primary care professionals’ and patients’ perceptions of, barriers to, and facilitators of the use of AI in primary care. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Scopus databases from inception to June 9, 2024. We used the Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research Type (SPIDER) tool to design the systematic search strategy for qualitative studies. Eligible studies included qualitative analyses—based on interviews, focus groups, or similar methods—of perceptions of, barriers to, and facilitators of the use of AI in primary care, involving primary care professionals or patients. Exclusion criteria included studies on clinical decision support systems, reviews, commentaries, editorials, conference abstracts, and non-English or non-Spanish publications. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. A thematic synthesis approach was used to structure the results, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation–Confidence in the Evidence From Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) tool was used to assess the confidence in each finding. Results: We analyzed 316 participants, including primary care physicians, patients, and other health care professionals, from 13 studies across 6 countries selected from 942 screened records. We identified four analytical themes using thematic synthesis: (1) change in the physician-patient relationship, highlighting concerns about loss of empathy, connection, and trust; (2) AI as a partner for efficient time and information management, including its potential to improve workflow and decision-making, alongside skepticism about increased workload; (3) data as the cornerstone of AI development, reflecting concerns about data privacy, quality, bias, and corporate responsibility; and (4) barriers to and facilitators of AI in primary care, emphasizing equity, accessibility, and stakeholder co-design. The GRADE-CERQual assessment provided high confidence in all themes except theme 4, which was rated as moderate confidence. Conclusions: This meta-synthesis includes the perspectives of primary care physicians and patients, but further research is needed on the perspectives of other professionals. Moreover, there was heterogeneity in methods and sampling strategies. This first systematic review synthesizing qualitative evidence on AI perceptions in primary care provides a comprehensive understanding of related barriers and facilitators. The key themes identified suggest that AI may help address workload, decision-making, and data management, improving health care efficiency while ensuring ethical, patient-centered care. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42024560048; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024560048

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination has been available for over four decades. However, a synthesis of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of this strategy on preventing hepatitis B infection in people who use drugs (PWUD) is lacking. A systematic search of the MEDLINE (via PubMed), SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted up to June 2024. Eight studies reported on the effectiveness of HBV vaccination, defined as a positive result for HBsAg or anti-Hbc in vaccinated versus non-vaccinated PWUD, with a pooled effect size of 52% (95% CI: 28.2–67.9) for HBsAg and 31.89% (95% CI: 14.8–45.5) for anti-Hbc. For sero-immunity, defined as the proportion of vaccinated PWUD with levels of anti-HBs ≥ 10 mIU/mL, we found that 66.2% (95% CI: 0.61–0.71; I2 = 94%) had protective levels of anti-HBs. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that the incidence of HBV infection is lower in vaccinated PWUD than in those who did not receive the vaccine. However, the effectiveness is lower than that observed in the general population. This highlights the need for a thorough review of the factors influencing the prevention of HBV infection in PWUD.

Background/Objectives: The 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20) was approved for use in children and infants on the basis of studies comparing its safety and immunogenicity with those of the 13-valent vaccine (PCV13). PCV20 offers expanded coverage of seven additional serotypes. This meta-analysis aimed to summarize the available evidence on the comparative immunogenicity between PCV20 and PCV13. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was conducted in September 2024. The following inclusion criteria were used: (i) design: randomized clinical trials; (ii) outcomes: studies that included immunogenicity outcomes; (iii) compared vaccines: any study directly comparing the immunogenicity of PCV20 and PCV13; and (iv) population: infant population <2 years of age. No language or temporal restrictions were applied in the study. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted via the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman method, with subgroup analyses according to the serotype and vaccination schedule (3 + 1 and 2 + 1). We used the revised Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2.0) to assess the risk of bias. The following parameters of immunogenicity were estimated: (i) the pooled geometric mean ratio (GMR PCV20/PCV13) of serotype-specific pneumococcal anticapsular antibodies, (ii) the pooled difference (PCV20-PCV13) in the percentage (DP) of participants who achieved predefined antibody levels for each serotype, and (iii) the pooled geometric mean titres (GMTs) of serotype-specific opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) in PCV20 and PCV13, along with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Results: Four studies (4093 infants aged 42–180 days) that compared the PCV20 and PCV13 vaccines, published between 2021 and 2024, were included in this meta-analysis. The immunogenicity of both groups was compared one month after the primary series and one month after the booster dose. The pooled results indicated that PCV20 elicited lower immune responses for the 13 serotypes shared with PCV13, according to the GMR and OPA outcomes. For the DP outcome, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups. Immune responses were higher for the additional serotypes in the PCV20 group; however, these differences were not statistically significant for all serotypes. Conclusions: This meta-analysis offers an overview of the evidence on the comparative immunogenicity of PCV20 and PCV13. Although some outcomes indicate that PCV20 elicits lower immune responses for the 13 serotypes shared with PCV13, it provides immunity against seven additional serotypes associated with IPD. Further studies are warranted to strengthen the evidence base, and continuous IPD surveillance remains essential to monitor shifts in serotype prevalence, assess the impact of current and future vaccines, and guide vaccine policy recommendations.

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are a public health problem. Many of the HAIs are preventable by following the 5 Moments for HH from WHO. We compared the degree of compliance of HH(DCHH) and the consumption of alcohol-based solutions (ABS) in our hospital in the years 2017-2019...