Background Many studies have shown that low health literacy (HL) is associated with several adverse outcomes. In this study, we systematically reviewed the prevalence of low HL in Europe. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched. Cross-sectional studies conducted in the European Union (EU), published from 2000, investigating the prevalence of low HL in adults using a reliable tool, were included. Quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Inverse-variance random effects methods were used to produce pooled prevalence estimates. A meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the association between low HL and the characteristics of the studies. Results The pooled prevalence of low HL ranged from of 27% (95% CI: 18–38%) to 48% (95% CI: 41–55%), depending on the literacy assessment method applied. Southern, Western, and Eastern EU countries had lower HL compared to northern Europe (β: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.40–1.35; β: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.25–0.93; and β: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.06–1.37, respectively). The assessment method significantly influenced the pooled estimate: compared to word recognition items, using self-reported comprehensions items (β: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.15–1.08), reading or numeracy comprehensions items (β: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.24–1.31), or a mixed method (β: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.01–1.33) found higher rates of low HL. Refugees had the lowest HL (β: 1.59, 95% CI: 0.26–2.92). Finally, lower quality studies reported higher rates of low HL (β: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.06–1.07). Discussion We found that low HL is a public health challenge throughout Europe, where one in every three to almost one in every two Europeans may not be able to understand essential health-related material. Additional research is needed to investigate the underlying causes and to develop remedies. PROSPERO Registration CRD42019133377

Background During the intensive care units’ (ICUs) reorganization that was forced by the COVID-19 emergency, attention to traditional infection control measures may have been reduced. Nevertheless, evidence on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) is still limited and mixed. In this study, we estimated the pandemic impact on HAI incidence and investigated the HAI type occurring in COVID-19 patients. Methods Patients admitted to the main ICU of the Umberto I teaching hospital of Rome from March 1st and April 4th 2020 were compared with patients hospitalized in 2019. We assessed the association of risk factors and time-to-first event through multivariable Fine and Grey’s regression models, that consider the competitive risk of death on the development of HAI (Model 1) or device related-HAI (dr-HAI, Model 2) and provide estimates of the sub-distribution hazard ratio (SHR) and its associated confidence interval (CI). A subgroup analysis was performed on the 2020 cohort. Results Data from 104 patients were retrieved. Overall, 59 HAIs were recorded, 32 of which occurred in the COVID-19 group. Patients admitted in 2020 were found to be positively associated with both HAI and dr-HAI onset (SHR: 2.66, 95% CI 1.31–5.38, and SHR: 10.0, 95% CI 1.84–54.41, respectively). Despite being not confirmed at the multivariable analysis, a greater proportion of dr-HAIs seemed to occur in COVID-19 patients, especially ventilator-associated pneumonia, and catheter-related urinary tract infections. Conclusions We observed an increase in the incidence of patients with HAIs, especially dr-HAIs, mainly sustained by COVID-19 patients. A greater susceptibility of these patients to device-related infections was hypothesized, but further studies are needed.

Achieving high levels of vaccination coverage against COVID-19 may be hindered by vaccine hesitancy. We quantified over time the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among university students, investigated its determinants, and analyzed student attitudes, risk perceptions and compliance with preventive measures. The survey was administered online from 1 March to 30 June 2021. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to identify predictors of hesitancy. Overall, we collected 5369 questionnaires that were grouped into three survey periods (March, April–May, and May–June). The response rate ranged from 81.2% to 76.4%, whereas vaccine hesitancy ranged from 22% to 29%. Multivariable analysis showed that April–May participants had higher odds of hesitancy than March respondents. Other positive predictors were being male, not being a healthcare student, having a lower academic level, and not disclosing a political position. Conversely, higher levels of perceived COVID-19 severity, concern for the emergency, confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness, and self-reported adherence to mask wearing indoors and outdoors were negatively associated with hesitancy. We found that vaccine hesitancy changed over time and in relation to several factors. Strategies aimed at increasing the students’ awareness and engagement, restoring confidence in health authorities, and limiting disinformation around the vaccines should be devised.

No abstract

It has been demonstrated that lactoferrin (LF) plays a role in host defence, but evidence on its potential antiviral property from clinical studies is fragmented. Our systematic review aimed at identifying the effects of orally administered LF against virus infections. The systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, BioRxiv.org and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to 7th January 2021. Eligible articles investigated any virus family and provided data on the effects of orally administered LF of any origin in the prevention and/or management of confirmed viral infections in people of any age. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk-Of-Bias and ROBINS-1 tools. A total of 27 records were included, nine of which were registered protocols. We found data on Flaviviridae (n = 10), Retroviridae (n = 3), Coronaviridae (n = 2), Reoviridae (n = 2) and Caliciviridae (n = 1). Most published trials were at high risk of bias. The findings were heterogeneous across and within viral families regarding virological, immunological and biological response, with no clear conclusion. Some weak but positive results were reported about decrease of symptom severity and duration, or reduction in viral loads. Despite high tolerability, the effects of LF as oral supplement are still inconsistent, both in preventing and managing viral infections. Small sample sizes, variety in recruitment and treatment protocols, and low study quality may have contributed to such heterogeneity.Better-designed studies are needed to further investigate its potential benefits against viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2.