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 understand health professionals' perceptions of climate change and its impact on health and their perceived role. This was a systematic review of qualitative studies. A systematic review of qualitative evidence from three databases (MEDLINE, CINHAL and PsycInfo) was conducted according to the Cochrane method in June 2024. The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed for the synthesis report. A total of 215 results were obtained, of which 10 studies were included on the basis of the inclusion criteria. The selected studies included predominantly nurses, physicians and public health professionals, with a smaller representation of other allied health professionals from Europe, North America and Africa. These studies were published between 2015 and 2024. Three themes were identified: "general knowledge of climate change", "role of health professionals in addressing climate change" and "barriers to action on climate change". Health professionals are aware of the health risks posed by climate change, but some barriers prevent or hinder their action. The main barriers are poor, overly generalised information and training, and a demotivating environment. Health professionals are aware of the existence and dangers of climate change but are less aware of their role in the face of climate change. Contextualised training and an enabling environment are needed. It is essential to study the perceptions of each group of health professionals at the national or subnational level.

Objectives: Eating disorders (EDs) have emerged as a growing public health concern. However, the role of sleep in this context remains underexplored. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to determine the associations between sleep parameters and chronotype with ED risk in a sample of university students in Spain. Methods: ED risk was assessed via the Sick, Control, One stone, Fat, Food Questionnaire, and sleep quality was assessed via the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Other sleep parameters and chronotypes were self-reported. Sociodemographic, body composition, lifestyle, and depressive symptom data were collected. Logistic and linear regression models adjusted for the main confounders were used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the study associations. Results: A total of 403 students (70.2% female) aged 18 to 30 years participated in the study. Those reporting poor sleep quality (OR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.08–3.17, p = 0.025) and ≤6 h of night-time sleep duration (OR = 4.14, 95% CI 2.00–8.57, p < 0.01) were more likely to be at risk of EDs in the adjusted analyses. The association between night-time sleep duration and the risk of ED did not remain significant when we adjusted for sleep quality. In addition, an evening chronotype was associated with an increased risk of EDs (OR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.07–2.66, p = 0.039) only before adjustment for confounders. Conclusions: Among university students, poorer sleep quality was cross-sectionally associated with EDs. Future prospective studies are needed to examine whether promoting sleep quality may serve as an effective strategy for preventing the risk of EDs.

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between different screen time (ST)-related behaviors and mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, and stress. In addition, this study aimed to determine the moderating role of socioeconomic status (SES). This was a cross-sectional study and included data from 620 adolescents, aged 12–17 years, from the Valle de Ricote , Region of Murcia, Spain. Mental health was assessed using the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Overall ST, mobile phone use, social network use, and messaging application use were measured using validated questionnaires. SES was assessed using the Family Affluence Scale-III. The results indicated that overall ST was significantly associated with symptoms of depression at the mean SES (unstandardized beta coefficient [ B ] = 0.005, p = 0.023) and 1 standard deviation (SD) below the mean ( B = 0.007, p = 0.011), and with stress only 1 SD below the mean ( B = 0.006, p = 0.011). No significant associations were found for anxiety and stress across all socioeconomic levels. Mobile phone use exhibited a strong positive association with symptoms of depression ( B = 0.891, p < 0.001), anxiety ( B = 0.530, p = 0.014), and stress ( B = 0.790, p < 0.001) at 1 SD below the mean SES. Similar patterns were observed for mean SES, albeit with slightly weaker associations. Conversely, social network use was positively associated with all three DASS-21 scales, particularly at 1 SD below the mean SES, with the strongest associations found for symptoms of depression ( B = 0.327, p < 0.001), anxiety ( B = 0.325, p < 0.001), and stress ( B = 0.318, p < 0.001). Furthermore, messaging application use did not show significant associations with symptoms of depression, anxiety, or stress across any SES levels. In conclusion, social inequalities may influence the associations between various ST-related behavior and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress among adolescents. These findings may have implications for the design of effective interventions to improve symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress in this population.

Surrounding residential greenness could influence healthy behaviours. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to systematically review the

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