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

To jointly assess the safety and effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on cardiorenal outcomes and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis, systematically searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases up to September 2020. Primary outcomes were composite major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), hospitalization for heart failure, all-cause mortality and a composite renal outcome. We performed a random effects network meta-analysis estimating the pooled hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio and number needed to treat (NNT). Six trials evaluating empagliflozin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, which comprised 46,969 patients, mostly with established CVD. Pooled estimates (95% CI) of benefits of SGLT2i in terms of HR and NNT were as follows: for all-cause mortality, 0.85 (0.75, 0.97) and 58 (28, 368); for MACE, 0.91 (0.85, 0.97) and 81 (44, 271); for hospitalization for heart failure, 0.70 (0.62, 0.78) and 32 (20, 55); and for composite renal outcome, 0.61 (0.50, 0.74) and 20 (11, 44). Pooled estimates for serious adverse events were 0.92 (95% CI 0.89, 0.95). In patients with T2DM at cardiovascular risk, ertugliflozin is a less potent drug than empagliflozin, canagliflozin or dapagliflozin to prevent cardiorenal events and all-cause mortality. In addition, our data endorse that empagliflozin is the best treatment option among SGLT2i for this type of patient, but the evidence is not consistent enough.

Background: Social determinants of health (SDH) have been shown to be predictors of health outcomes. Integrating SDH screening tools into primary care may help identify individuals or groups with a greater burden of social vulnerability and promote health equity. Objective: This study aimed (1) to identify the existing screening tools to assess social deprivation in adults in primary care settings; (2) to describe the characteristics of these tools and, where appropriate, their psychometric properties; (3) to describe their validity and reliability in those scales in which validation processes have been conducted; and (4) to identify evidence gaps and provide recommendations for future research. Methods: This study protocol was structured according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Furthermore, since not all SDH assessment tools are published as scientific papers, we will use a slightly modified form of the scoping review framework to retrieve specific information about specific tools for screening SDH in primary care contexts. The following electronic databases will be searched by 2 reviewers: MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and Scopus. In addition, the following sources will also be searched for gray literature: DART-Europe E-thesis Portal, OpenGrey, and Google Scholar. After the revision of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the titles, abstracts, and full text of the included studies will be separately screened by 2 reviewers. A PRISMA-ScR flowchart will be used to depict the sources of evidence screened, and data charting will be used to gain in-depth knowledge. The findings of the scoping review will be presented in both narrative and tabular formats, summarizing the existing literature on tools used for SDH in primary care settings. A critical analysis will be undertaken to address the variability in tool validation, cultural adaptability, and integration into different health care systems. Finally, key gaps in the existing evidence will be explored, and research priorities will be proposed, emphasizing the need for screening tools that are culturally sensitive, scalable, and easily integrated into primary care workflows. This critically appraised information may be useful for implementing SDH screening tools in primary care settings and may contribute to future research addressing feasibility and validation studies in different primary health care systems. Results: The study began in July 2024. Data collection is expected to be completed in April 2025, with publication expected in October 2025. Conclusions: This scoping review will provide a comprehensive and critical description of the available tools aimed at screening SDH in primary care settings. Incorporating these tools into routine care has been recognized as a key strategy for addressing health inequalities, given the growing evidence base on the influence of SDH on health outcomes. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/68668

Introducción y objetivos: El comienzo del curso escolar durante la epidemia por COVID-19 hizo necesaria la comunicación entre el Centro de Salud Daroca (Madrid) y los centros educativos de su zona. Métodos: Se realizó un mapeo de los centros educativos estableciendo contacto telefónico y ofreciendo un correo electrónico para compartir incidencias. Se recogieron datos sobre las medidas adoptadas ante la epidemia y se celebraron sesiones informativas en los centros que lo solicitaron, evaluadas mediante cuestionarios. Resultados: Se contactó con 14 centros educativos de la zona (3.635 alumnos y 412 profesionales) y se intercambiaron 103 correos electrónicos. Todos los centros tomaron medidas especiales ante la epidemia. Se impartieron 13 sesiones informativas en 3 centros: 92,5% solicitaron más sesiones y la puntuación media fue de 8,1. Conclusiones: El contacto del centro de salud con los centros educativos tuvo muy buena acogida y supuso un punto de partida para establecer un vínculo comunicativo. Palabras clave: colegios, COVID-19, prevención, salud comunitaria.

BACKGROUND Social determinants of health (SDH) have been shown to be predictors of health outcomes. Integrating SDH screening tools into primary care may help identify individuals or groups with a greater burden of social vulnerability and promote health equity. OBJECTIVE This study aimed (1) to identify the existing screening tools to assess social deprivation in adults in primary care settings; (2) to describe the characteristics of these tools and, where appropriate, their psychometric properties; (3) to describe their validity and reliability in those scales in which validation processes have been conducted; and (4) to identify evidence gaps and provide recommendations for future research. METHODS This study protocol was structured according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Furthermore, since not all SDH assessment tools are published as scientific papers, we will use a slightly modified form of the scoping review framework to retrieve specific information about specific tools for screening SDH in primary care contexts. The following electronic databases will be searched by 2 reviewers: MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and Scopus. In addition, the following sources will also be searched for gray literature: DART-Europe E-thesis Portal, OpenGrey, and Google Scholar. After the revision of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the titles, abstracts, and full text of the included studies will be separately screened by 2 reviewers. A PRISMA-ScR flowchart will be used to depict the sources of evidence screened, and data charting will be used to gain in-depth knowledge. The findings of the scoping review will be presented in both narrative and tabular formats, summarizing the existing literature on tools used for SDH in primary care settings. A critical analysis will be undertaken to address the variability in tool validation, cultural adaptability, and integration into different health care systems. Finally, key gaps in the existing evidence will be explored, and research priorities will be proposed, emphasizing the need for screening tools that are culturally sensitive, scalable, and easily integrated into primary care workflows. This critically appraised information may be useful for implementing SDH screening tools in primary care settings and may contribute to future research addressing feasibility and validation studies in different primary health care systems. RESULTS The study began in July 2024. Data collection is expected to be completed in April 2025, with publication expected in October 2025. CONCLUSIONS This scoping review will provide a comprehensive and critical description of the available tools aimed at screening SDH in primary care settings. Incorporating these tools into routine care has been recognized as a key strategy for addressing health inequalities, given the growing evidence base on the influence of SDH on health outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/68668

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. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO CRD42024560048; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024560048