Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine-related side effects have a determinant role in the public decision regarding vaccination. Therefore, this study has been designed to actively monitor the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines globally. Methods: A multi-country, three-phase study including a cross-sectional survey to test for the short-term side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among target population groups. In the second phase, we will monitor the booster doses’ side effects, while in the third phase, the long-term safety and effectiveness will be investigated. A validated, self-administered questionnaire will be used to collect data from the target population; Results: The study protocol has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, with the identifier NCT04834869. Conclusions: CoVaST is the first independent study aiming to monitor the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines following booster doses, and the long-term safety and effectiveness of said vaccines.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 on the burnout and study satisfaction of medical students.DesignA cross-sectional study with a presurvey and postsurvey.SettingUniversity of Split School of Medicine (USSM), Split, Croatia. The lockdown in the COVID-19 pandemic lasted from late March to mid-May 2020. There was a full switch to e-learning at the USSM during this period, and all clinical teaching was stopped.ParticipantsStudents enrolled in the 2019/2020 academic year. Data were collected before lockdown in December 2019 and January 2020 and again after the end of lockdown in June 2020.Primary and secondary outcome measuresStudy satisfaction was assessed using the study satisfaction survey. Burnout was assessed using two instruments: Oldenburg Burnout Inventory and Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. We used Bayesian statistics to compare before-and-after differences.Results437 independent responses (77.2% response rate) were collected before and 235 after lockdown (41.5% response rate). 160 participant responses were eligible for pairing. There was no significant difference for both paired and unpaired participants in study satisfaction before (3.38 on a 1–5 scale; 95% credible interval (95% CrI) 3.32 to 3.44) and after (3.49, 95% CrI 3.41 to 3.57) lockdown. We found no evidence (Bayes factor (BF10) >3.00 as a cut-off value) for an increase in the level of burnout before and after lockdown, both in independent and paired samples.ConclusionsIt seems that the first pandemic-related lockdown and a switch to e-learning did not affect burnout levels among medical students or their perception of their study programme. More insight is needed on the short-term and long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students and their education. Well-structured longitudinal studies on medical student burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic are needed.

Background Medical schools should also evaluate applicants’ non-academic characteristics in the search for successful students and future physicians, but ideal non-academic criteria have not yet been found. We followed two successive generations of medical students at the University of Split School of Medicine (USSM) to assess both academic and non-academic constructs as predictors of academic performance, defined as medical school grade point average (GPA). We also interviewed some of the participants to gain additional insight for future studies. Methods We measured study GPA in first and last year, as well as attitudes towards science, motivation, emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and perceived personal incompetence in first year. We also obtained their scores on existing medical school enrollment criteria, the State Graduation Exam (SGE) and high-school GPA. Regression models were constructed for predictors of GPA in the last year of medical school. Four structured pilot interviews were conducted to explore participants’ perceptions of necessary traits for medical school and later practice. Results Regression analysis showed that only SGE predicted final academic performance in medical school (β=0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.06-0.64), while none of the non-academic constructs we assessed predicted this outcome of education. The two generations did not significantly differ in any variable except that intrinsic motivation was higher in the generation that enrolled in 2011 (OR=1.47, 95%CI=1.12-1.93, P=0.005). Discussion None of the non-academic constructs predicted academic performance in medical school. Their use as selection criteria may not be warranted as they could impact the academic quality of enrolling medical students.

This is a protocol for a scoping review that aims to determine how guideline authors using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach have addressed previously identified challenges related to public health. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews will be followed. We will search and screen titles of guidelines for all languages published in 2013–2021 in: the GIN library, BIGG database, Epistemonikos GRADE guidelines repository, GRADEpro Database, MAGICapp, NICE and WHO websites. Two reviewers will independently screen full texts of the documents identified. The following information will be extracted: methods used for identifying different stakeholders and incorporating their perspectives; methods for identification and prioritization of non-health outcomes; methods for determining thresholds for decision-making; methods for incorporating and grading evidence from non-randomized studies; methods for addressing concerns with conditional recommendations in public health; methods for reaching consensus; additional methodological concerns; and any modifications made to GRADE. A combination of directed content analysis and descriptive statistics will be used for data analysis, and the findings presented narratively in a tabular and graphical form. In this protocol, we present the pilot results from 13 identified eligible guidelines issued between January and August 2021. We will publish the full review results when they become available.

Although there is research interest to assess attitudes on psychedelics, no validated instrument exists for this purpose. We aimed to develop and examine the psychometric properties of the Attitudes on Psychedelics Questionnaire (APQ) in a sample of the Croatian general population. A cross-sectional, web-based survey among the general population was conducted on 1153 participants (62.1% female, 77.7% with a graduate or high school degree, 15.1% health care workers). We assessed participants’ ability to recognize psychedelic substances using a short knowledge test. The APQ consists of 20 items with four sub-scales: Legal Use of Psychedelics, Effects of Psychedelics, Risk Assessment of Psychedelics, and Openness to Psychedelics. This model demonstrated best fit in a confirmatory factor analysis. Total scale reliability was excellent (McDonald’s ω = 0.949, 95% CI = 0.944–0.953). A strong correlation with a similar unvalidated measure (r = 0.885, P < 0.001) demonstrated convergent validity. We observed an association between attitudes and knowledge on psychedelics (r = 0.494, P < 0.001). Younger age, male gender, and lower educational status were associated with higher APQ scores. The APQ is valid, reliable, and could be applied in assessing educational interventions, patients’ treatment outcomes, and the attitudes of different groups of experts. We encourage further validation of the APQ in English.