Person-centered care has led healthcare professionals (HCPs) to be more attentive to patients’ ability to understand and apply health-related information, especially those with chronic conditions. The concept of health literacy (HL) is essential in understanding patients’ needs in routine care, but its measurement is still controversial, and few tools are validated in French. We therefore considered the brief health literacy screen (BHLS) for assessing patient-reported HL in chronic care settings, and also developed an HCP-reported version of the BHLS with the aim of using it as a research instrument to assess HCPs’ evaluation of patients’ HL levels. We assessed the content validity of the French translation of both the patient-reported and HCP-reported BHLS in chronic care within hospital settings, through cognitive interviews with patients and HCPs. We performed qualitative analysis on interview data using the survey response Tourangeau model. Our results show that the BHLS is easy and quick to administer, but some terms need to be adapted to the French chronic care settings. Health-related information was observed to be mainly communicated orally, hence a useful direction for future literacy measures would be to also address verbal HL.

This multicentre, prospective study evaluated the efficacy and safety of 7-day oral moxifloxacin (400 mg/day) for treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis after first-line treatment failure (group 1), and acute sinusitis with high risk of complications (group 2). Two hundred and fifty-eight patients with radiologically confirmed acute sinusitis were enrolled by 52 investigators; 216 patients (83.7%) qualified for per protocol efficacy analysis (group 1, n = 175; group 2, n = 41), and 92 for bacteriological analysis. Samples were collected from the middle meatus. The clinical success rate 7 -10 days posttreatment was 92.6%. Bacteriological success rates were 95.7% after 3 -4 days of treatment, and 97.2% and 95.2%, in group 1 and group 2, respectively, at 7 -10 days post-treatment. Drug-related adverse events, including abdominal pain (2.4%), nausea (2.4%) and diarrhoea (1.2%), were reported in 12.2% of patients. Overall, moxifloxacin therapy resulted in rapid bacteriological eradication, with a high rate of clinical success.

Background: Persons experiencing unstable housing – including recently arrived migrants – are at elevated risk of contracting COVID-19 and suffer from high morbidity and mortality. In this context, the COVID-19 vaccine was foreseen as a promising way to control the pandemic and reduce social inequalities in this area. Understanding the motives of COVID-19 vaccine acceptability in people with unstable housing, including migrants, is therefore crucial to tailor public health communication and outreach. Thus, the main objective of our study was to investigate - both quantitatively and qualitatively – the motivations behind vaccine hesitancy in people experiencing unstable housing when vaccines became available in France.Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed in Spring 2021, using convergent mixed-methods approach. Participants were recruited from homeless shelters and day centres and face-to-face interviews were offered, with help, where necessary, from phone-based interpreters. Factors associated with motives for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were explored using logistic regression models. Qualitative data – collected through semi-structured individual interviews - were analysed via an inductive thematic approach. Both quantitative and qualitative data were then integrated. Results: Vaccine hesitancy was found to be at an elevated rate (58.0%). The three most reported motives of hesitancy were related to COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, safety, and trust in information about the vaccine. Factors of elevated hesitancy comprised the interviewees’ age, level of education, French-language aptitude, feeling of worry about COVID-19, and time of residence in France. Generic distrust in official information was a shared associated factor for the 3 motives of hesitancy. This result was expanded upon by the interview data where participants described having differential trust depending on who is recommending the vaccination. Another emerging key theme related to hopes that the vaccine would release them from the burden of the pandemic. Conclusions: Our mixed methods study provides a comprehensive understanding of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among persons with unstable housing in France in Spring 2021. Elevated levels of hesitancy remain a public health concern as “No one is safe until everyone is safe”. The already established role of trust in vaccine hesitancy is still to be adequately addressed as a potentially effective route of intervention.