Background: Health-related misinformation is a pervasive phenomenon that expanded substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly regarding concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of online health misinformation susceptibility on health behaviors and vaccine hesitancy. Methods: A cross-sectional study with a convenience sample of 402 individuals was conducted in Greece, with data collected via an online survey during September 2025. We used the Health-Related Online Misinformation Susceptibility Scale to measure online health misinformation susceptibility. The Health Behavior Inventory–Short Form was used to measure health behaviors, while the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS) was used to measure participants’ hesitancy towards vaccination. We performed multivariable analysis to identify the independent effect of health misinformation after adjustment for several confounders. Results: Multivariable linear regression analysis showed a positive association between online health misinformation susceptibility and diet score (adjusted coefficient beta = 0.026; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.006 to 0.046; p = 0.010) and anger and stress score (adjusted coefficient beta = 0.033; 95% CI = 0.013 to 0.052; p = 0.001). After adjustment for confounders, we found a positive association between online health misinformation susceptibility and score on the factors “lack of confidence” (adjusted coefficient beta = 0.016; 95% CI = 0.005 to 0.028; p = 0.006) and “risk perception” (adjusted coefficient beta = 0.023; 95% CI = 0.010 to 0.036; p = 0.001). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that higher susceptibility to online health misinformation is associated with poorer health behaviors and greater vaccine hesitancy.

Background/Objectives: The quality and safety of care provision have consistently remained central concerns for the management of healthcare organizations worldwide. Nurses’ work environment and occupational behaviors may significantly affect these outcomes. The present study aimed to evaluate the nursing work environment, assess the extent of quiet quitting among nurses, and investigate their impact on the quality and safety of care delivery. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Greece, and data were collected via an online survey between October and December 2025. Quiet quitting and work environment were measured using the nine-item Quiet Quitting Scale (QQS) and the five-item short form of the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (PES-5), respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 28.0. The level of statistical significance was set at 0.05. Results: The sample included 492 nurses. The overall quiet quitting rating was low to moderate (mean = 2.18, SD = 0.65), and the mean score for the PES-5 was 2.44 (SD = 0.53) indicating a moderate realization of a supportive work environment. More than half of the participants (52.0%, n = 256) rated the quality of care at their unit as good, and 23.6% (n = 116) as fair. Additionally, 33.1% (n = 163) of the nurses described patient safety as good and 28.5% (n = 140) very good. In the multivariable model, lower scores for quiet quitting were significantly associated with higher likelihood of reporting perceived quality of care as good or excellent (adjusted OR = 0.429; 95% CI: 0.310–0.593; p < 0.001) and increased odds of reporting perceived patient safety as good or excellent (adjusted OR = 0.394; 95% CI: 0.281–0.553; p < 0.001). Higher PES-5 scores were linked to more than nine-fold increased odds of reporting good or excellent perceived quality of care (adjusted OR = 9.155; 95% CI: 5.374–15.596; p < 0.001) and an over twenty-fold increase in the odds of reporting good or excellent perceived patient safety (adjusted OR = 22.190; 95% CI: 11.533–42.693; p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study highlighted that low levels of quiet quitting and a more favorable nursing practice environment are important and independent predictors of better perceived quality and safety of care.

Background/Objectives: Patient safety culture represents a holistic approach to ensuring the safety of patient care. When nurses experience abusive behaviors, patient safety culture is undermined. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Greece, and data were collected via an online survey between October and December 2025. Workplace gaslighting and patient safety culture were measured using the Gaslighting at Work Scale and the Safety Organizing Scale, respectively. Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 28.0. The level of statistical significance was set at 0.05. Results: The sample included 448 nurses. Almost nine out of ten of the participants (87.3%) were women, with an average age of 38.04 years (SD = 10.27). Regarding educational level, 42.2% held a MSc or PhD degree. Respondents reported moderate perceived workplace gaslighting with a mean score of 2.37 (SD = 1.04) on the Gaslighting at Work Scale. For safety culture, the Safety Organizing Scale yielded a mean score of 5.00 (SD = 0.91). In the univariable analysis, workplace gaslighting was significantly and negatively associated with safety culture (beta = -0.195, 95% CI = -0.275 to -0.115, p < .001), indicating that higher levels of workplace gaslighting were related to worse safety culture behaviors. This association was still significant even when potential confounding variables were considered (adjusted beta = -0.223, 95% CI = -0.305 to -0.142, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study highlighted the negative impact of workplace gaslighting on patient safety culture. Healthcare organizational leadership is urged to establish and enforce zero-tolerance policies toward gaslighting behaviors and to foster an environment in which nurses are encouraged to speak up openly and report such behaviors.

Background: Tourists often travel within their own country or abroad for business, leisure or to receive planned healthcare. However, they are often not prepared for unexpected medical emergencies that occur far from home. Seeking emergency healthcare during travel may pose various barriers and challenges to tourists. Aims: This systematic review aimed to identify the challenges and barriers tourists face while seeking emergency healthcare during travel. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and ScienceDirect from 1st January 1995 to 31 October 2025. The review included studies focusing on tourists who sought emergency healthcare abroad. Due to the methodological heterogeneity of the studies making meta-analysis impossible, a narrative synthesis of the results was conducted. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD420251156975). Results: From 608 initial titles (603 from database searches and 5 additional from similar articles), 10 studies were selected—5 cross-sectional and 5 retrospective. Most (7/10) were conducted in Asian countries, while others were conducted in Europe (1), the U.S.A. (1) and multiple countries (1). The participant number ranged from 37 to 2333. All studies included both genders, apart from one that focused exclusively on pregnant women. The most common challenges identified were language and cultural barriers, limited access to healthcare services in terms of appropriateness and timeliness of care and financial and insurance coverage issues. Conclusions: The findings underscore that tourists face multiple barriers when seeking emergency healthcare abroad, resulting in negative tourist travel experiences. Once identified, specific strategies should be adopted to improve accessibility and the overall quality of care for tourists.

Purpose: To examine associations of workplace gaslighting with job satisfaction and self-rated performance among hospital nurses. Design/methodology/approach: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 448 hospital nurses in Greece between October and December 2025. Workplace gaslighting was assessed with the 11-item Gaslighting at Work Scale. Job satisfaction and self-rated performance were assessed using global single-item measures. Pearson correlations and linear regression models adjusted for age, gender, postgraduate education, work experience, shift work, and perceived understaffing were used. Findings: Higher workplace gaslighting was associated with lower job satisfaction (r = −0.339, p < .001) and lower self-rated performance (r = −0.153, p = .001). After adjustment, each 1-point higher gaslighting score was associated with a 0.523-point lower job satisfaction score (95% CI, −0.659 to −0.388; p < .001) and a 0.241-point lower self-rated performance score (95% CI, −0.376 to −0.106; p < .001). Adjusted models explained 17.9% and 6.0% of variance, respectively. Practical implications: Workplace gaslighting warrants attention as a potentially important marker of dysfunctional leadership in nursing workforce research and management. Originality: The study addressed the relationship between supervisor gaslighting and two occupational outcomes among hospital nurses. Gaslighting was more strongly associated with job satisfaction than with self-rated performance. The findings are relevant to hospital nurses, nurse managers and nursing workforce researchers.

Background/Objectives: Rapid advancements in reperfusion strategies and optimized medical therapies have significantly improved survival among patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, a large population still lives with the chronic consequences of the disease, including impaired post-discharge health-related quality of life (HRQOL). This systematic review aimed to identify and summarize the existing evidence regarding the determinants of HRQOL among patients with ACS. Methods: A comprehensive search following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Science Direct until 20 July 2025. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD420251157478). Results: From an initial 12,280 articles, 55 were selected. Forty-two studies used a cohort design and thirteen were cross-sectional. All studies were published between 2000 and 2025. Most of the studies were conducted in Europe and America. Common predictors of improved HRQOL were better baseline quality of life, previous exercise behavior, sense of coherence, coping strategies, revascularization during index hospitalization, time passed after ACS and diagnosis of STEMI. The most common factors that worsened HRQOL were female sex, lower educational and financial status, being unemployed, depression, anxiety, the presence of comorbidities and lower social support including having no partner. Conclusions: The findings highlight that post-ACS HRQOL is determined by multiple factors including demographic, clinical and psychological factors. Clinical practice should therefore focus on targeted strategies that optimize modifiable factors, prioritizing early psychological screening and individualized support for high-risk groups, to effectively improve HRQOL and overall quality of care.