IntroductionThe nurse provides medical care for the patient, including nursing, administering medicines and performing injections. She assists the doctor in the process of diagnosis and treatment. The definition of this profession changes as a result of the development of science and increasing expectations of health care. The development of this profession is evidenced by developed models of nursing, which will focus on the practical application of the acquired knowledge.Aim The aim of this work was to present the tasks and competences of nursing and the role of this profession in improving the quality of patient care.Material and methodThe paper uses the method of literature analysis. The material used in the paper comes from publications published in a compact form and scientific articles.ResultsThe review of the collected scientific material showed that nurses have a significant impact on the quality of health care and the functioning of the entire facility. Healthcare institutions belong to organizations in which the quality of services translates into the patient's health and life. Care should therefore be a priority for the entire staff, especially for the nurses who first meet the patient and spend a lot of time with him. Patients expect medical knowledge from nurses first and foremost, but also safety, trust and proper communication.ConclusionsIn recent years, nursing has been constantly changing, which means that people in this profession have to take various actions for their development. Patient expectations are also changing. Their opinion and satisfaction is important for success. A satisfied patient will surely use the services of the facility again.

(1) Background: The effects of lockdown repetition on work-related stress, expressed through Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI), during the COVID-19 pandemic are poorly documented. We investigated the effect of repetitive lockdowns on the ERI in French workers, its difference across occupations, and the change in its influencing factors across time. (2) Methods: Participants were included in a prospective cross-sectional observational study from 30 March 2020 to 28 May 2021. The primary outcome was the ERI score (visual analog scale). The ERI score of the population was examined via Generalized Estimating Equations. For each period, the factors influencing ERI were studied by multivariate linear regression. (3) Results: In 8121 participants, the ERI score decreased in the first 2 lockdowns (53.2 ± 0.3, p < 0.001; 50.5 ± 0.7, p < 0.001) and after lockdown 2 (54.8 ± 0.8, p = 0.004) compared with the pre-pandemic period (59 ± 0.4). ERI was higher in medical than in paramedical professionals in the pre-pandemic and the first 2 lockdowns. Higher workloads were associated with better ERI scores. (4) Conclusions: In a large French sample, Effort-Reward Imbalance worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic until the end of the 2nd lockdown. Paramedical professionals experienced a higher burden of stress compared with medical professionals.

Background/Objectives: Vaccine hesitancy arises from multiple determinants, including individual beliefs, cognitive style, social norms, political identity and the information environment. In this context, health literacy, e-health literacy, susceptibility to health misinformation, conspiracy beliefs and trust in science may be relevant in mediatized societies. Aim: The aim of the study was to examine how susceptibility to health misinformation relates to vaccine hesitancy in Poland and how this association is influenced by health literacy, e-health literacy, trust in scientists and sociodemographic factors. Methods: Data came from a web-based survey conducted in December 2024 among 2200 adults aged 18–75 years. The questionnaire included validated scales of vaccine hesitancy, health literacy, e-health literacy, vaccine conspiracy beliefs and trust in scientists. The susceptibility to health misinformation was measured with ad hoc instrument based on the statement from fact-checking services. Items assessing digital media use, political sympathies, religious practices and sociodemographics were also applied. Multivariable linear regression was applied with continuous vaccine hesitancy as the dependent variable. Results: The model explained 57.8% of the variance in vaccine hesitancy. Susceptibility to misinformation (B = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.08–0.15) and vaccine conspiracy beliefs (B = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.41–0.46) were positive predictors, whereas trust in scientists (B = −0.20, 95% CI: −0.23–−0.17) and e-health literacy (B = −0.07, 95% CI: −0.11–−0.02) were protective. Older age was associated with lower hesitancy (B = −0.02, 95% CI: −0.03–0.00). Secondary education (B = −0.58) and a master’s degree (B = −0.77) predicted lower hesitancy. Health literacy categories were not significantly related to vaccine hesitancy. Conclusions: Susceptibility to health misinformation and vaccine conspiracy beliefs were key predictors of vaccine hesitancy, outweighing the effects of health literacy and the protective impact of trust in scientists and e-health literacy, and indicating a need for interventions that combine prebunking and literacy-focused strategies with efforts to strengthen confidence in health institutions.