Healthcare systems are responsible for 4%–5% of the emissions of greenhouse gases worldwide. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol divides carbon emissions into three scopes: scope 1 or direct emissions secondary to energy use; scope 2 or indirect emissions secondary to purchased electricity; and scope 3 for the rest of indirect emissions. Aim: To describe the environmental impact of health services. Design: A systematic review was conducted in the Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. Studies that focused their analysis on a functional healthcare unit and which included. This review was conducted from August to October 2022. Results: The initial electronic search yielded a total of 4368 records. After the screening process according to the inclusion criteria, 13 studies were included in this review. The reviewed studies found that between 15% and 50% of the total emissions corresponded to scopes 1 and 2 emissions, whereas scope 3 emissions ranged between 50% and 75% of the total emissions. Disposables, equipment (medical and non‐medical) and pharmaceuticals represented the higher percentage of emissions in scope 3. Conclusion: Most of the emissions corresponded to scope 3, which includes the indirect emission occurring as a consequence of the healthcare activity, as this scope includes a wider range of emission sources than the other scopes. Implications for the profession and/or patient care: Interventions should be carried out by the healthcare organizations responsible of Greenhouse Gas emissions, and also every single individual that integrates them should make changes. The use of evidence‐based approaches to identify carbon hotspots and implement the most effective interventions in the healthcare setting could lead to a significant reduction of carbon emissions. Impact: This literature review highlights the impact that healthcare systems have on climate change and the importance of adopting and carrying out interventions to prevent its fast development. Reporting Method: This review adhered to PRISMA guideline. PRISMA 2020 is a guideline designed for systematic reviews of studies that analyse the effects of heath interventions, and aim is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic review and meta‐analyses. Patient or Public Contribution: No Patient or Public Contribution.

Measures to prevent and contain the COVID-19 health crisis include population confinement, with the consequent isolation and interruption of their usual activities. The aim of the study is to analyse psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. For this, a cross-sectional observational study with a sample of 4180 people over the age of 18 during quarantine was developed. Variables considered were sociodemographic variables, physical symptoms, health conditions, COVID-19 contact history and psychological adjustment. The data were collected through a self-developed questionnaire and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Bivariate analyses were performed, including Chi-Squared test and Student’s T-test. Predictive ability was calculated through logistic regression. Results obtained showed a high level of psychological distress (72.0%), with a higher percentage in women and people of lower middle age. Statistically significant differences were found in the variable working situation (χ² = 63.139, p ≤ 0.001, V = 0.123) and living with children under the age of 16 (χ² = 7.393, p = 0.007, V = 0.042). The predictive variables with the highest weight were sex (OR = 1.952, 95% IC = (1.667, 2.286)), presence of symptoms (OR = 1.130, 95% CI = (1.074, 1.190)), and having had close contact with an individual with confirmed COVID-19 (OR = 1.241, 95% CI = (1.026, 1.500)). These results could enrich prevention interventions in public health and, in particular, in mental health in similar pandemic situations.

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process within the physician–patient relationship applicable to any clinical action, whether diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive in nature. It has been defined as a process of mutual respect and participation between the doctor and the patient. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of decision aids (DA) in primary care based on changes in adherence to treatments, knowledge, and awareness of the disease, conflict with decisions, and patients’ and health professionals’ satisfaction with the intervention. Methods: A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials as study design; use of SDM with DA as an intervention; primary care as clinical context; written in English, Spanish, and Portuguese; and published between January 2007 and January 2019. The risk of bias of the included studies in this review was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Results: Twenty four studies were selected out of the 201 references initially identified. With the use of DA, the use of antibiotics was reduced in cases of acute respiratory infection and decisional conflict was decreased when dealing with the treatment choice for atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis. The rate of determination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the prostate cancer screening decreased and colorectal cancer screening increased. Both professionals and patients increased their knowledge about depression, type 2 diabetes, and the perception of risk of acute myocardial infarction at 10 years without statins and with statins. The satisfaction was greater with the use of DA in choosing the treatment for depression, in cardiovascular risk management, in the treatment of low back pain, and in the use of statin therapy in diabetes. Blinding of outcomes assessment was the most common bias. Conclusions: DA used in primary care are effective to reduce decisional conflict and improve knowledge on the disease and treatment options, awareness of risk, and satisfaction with the decisions made. More studies are needed to assess the impact of shared decision making in primary care.

Emotional intelligence is an essential trait and skill for healthcare professionals. Mindfulness meditation has proved to be effective in increasing the wellbeing of those who practice it, leading to better mental health, self-care and job satisfaction. This paper aims to identify the recent evidence on the relationship between mindfulness and emotional intelligence among healthcare professionals and students. A systematic review was conducted including the databases PubMed, Cinhal, PsycINFO and Web of Science. The main variables were emotional intelligence skills and mindfulness practice. Data were extracted according to the following outcomes: authors, year of publication, country, study design, participants, mindfulness training intervention, tools used in data collection and main results. The following inclusion criteria were applied: peer-reviewed articles; published in English or Spanish; published between 2010 and 2020; quantitative methodology; a study population of healthcare professionals or students; the relationship with the aim of the study. The Joanna Briggs Institute criteria were followed for assessing the methodological quality of the selected studies. Three researchers were involved in the review. After the selection process, 10 studies were selected out of the 197 references initially identified. These studies revealed a positive relationship between mindfulness and emotional intelligence, particularly the capacity to regulate emotions. Furthermore, mindfulness is negatively related to emotional exhaustion. Training interventions based on mindfulness have proved to be useful in promoting emotional balance, emotional awareness, emotional acceptance, emotion recognition, expressive suppression and a reduction in emotional exhaustion. This study could serve as a basis for further research on the benefits of emotional intelligence and practicing mindfulness for the bio-psycho-social welfare of healthcare professionals.

Although identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a global health priority, maternal mental health does not receive much attention even in the health systems of developed countries. With pregnancy monitoring protocols placing priority on the physical health of the mother, there is a paucity of literature documenting the traumatising effects of the birth process. To address this knowledge gap, this qualitative descriptive study aimed to investigate women perceptions of living a traumatic childbirth experience and the factors related to it. Qualitative data, collected via semi-structured interviews with 32 participants recruited from parent support groups and social media in Spain, were analyzed through a six-phase inductive thematic analysis. Data analysis revealed five major themes―“Birth Plan Compliance”, “Obstetric Problems”, “Mother-Infant Bond”, “Emotional Wounds” and “Perinatal Experiences”—and 13 subthemes. The majority of responses mentioned feelings of being un/misinformed by healthcare personnel, being disrespected and objectified, lack of support, and various problems during childbirth and postpartum. Fear, loneliness, traumatic stress, and depression were recurrent themes in participants’ responses. As the actions of healthcare personnel can substantially impact a birth experience, the study findings strongly suggest the need for proper policies, procedures, training, and support to minimise negative consequences of childbirth.