We analysed issues concerning the establishment of compulsory vaccination against COVID-19, as well as the role of misinformation as a disincentive—especially when published by health professionals—and citizen acceptance of measures in this regard. Data from different surveys revealed a high degree of hesitation rather than outright opposition to vaccines. The most frequent complaint related to the COVID-19 vaccination was the fear of side effects. Within the Spanish and European legislative framework, both compulsory vaccination and government regulation of FN (Fake News) appear to be feasible options, counting on sufficient legal support, which could be reinforced by additional amendment. However, following current trends of good governance, policymakers must have public legitimation. Rather than compulsory COVID-19 vaccination, an approach based on education and truthful information, persuading the population of the benefits of a vaccine on a voluntary basis, is recommended. Disagreements between health professionals are positive, but they should be resolved following good practice and the procedures of the code of ethics. Furthermore, citizens do not support the involvement of government authorities in the direct control of news. Collaboration with the media and other organizations should be used instead.

When exceptional situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, arise and reliable data is not available at decision-making times, estimation using mathematical models can provide a reasonable reckoning for health planning. We present a simplified model (static but with two-time references) for estimating the cost-effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine. A simplified model provides a quick assessment of the upper bound of cost-effectiveness, as we illustrate with data from Spain, and allows for easy comparisons between countries. It may also provide useful comparisons among different vaccines at the marketplace, from the perspective of the buyer. From the analysis of this information, key epidemiological figures, and costs of the disease for Spain have been estimated, based on mortality. The fatality rate is robust data that can alternatively be obtained from death registers, funeral homes, cemeteries, and crematoria. Our model estimates the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to be 5132 € (4926–5276) as of 17 February 2021, based on the following assumptions/inputs: An estimated cost of 30 euros per dose (plus transport, storing, and administration), two doses per person, efficacy of 70% and coverage of 70% of the population. Even considering the possibility of some bias, this simplified model provides confirmation that vaccination against COVID-19 is highly cost-effective.

Using a mathematical model for COVID-19 incorporating data on excess of mortality compared to the corresponding period of the previous year obtained from the daily monitoring of mortality in Spain (MoMo), the prediction of total number of casualties in Spain for the first outbreak has been computed. From this figure, and following a stepwise meta-analysis of available reports, the case fatality rate (CFR) and the infectious case fatality rate (IFR) for the outbreak have been estimated. As the impact of age on these rates is notable, it is proposed to include an age-related adjusted fatality ratio in future comparative analyses between studies, calculated by adjusting the results by risk ratio to a reference age band (e.g., 60–69). From the casualty figures, and the corresponding CFR and IFR ratios, the forecast of serologically positive cases in the general Spanish population has been estimated at approximately 1% (0.87–1.3%) of the samples. If the data are confirmed by the ongoing study of the Carlos III Institute, until a vaccine is found, the immunity acquired in the general population after the infectious outbreak is far from the 65–70% herd immunity required as a barrier for COVID-19.

The introduction of new drugs in the MI applied in Spain has had an important economic impact since 1996. Their cost-effectiveness is still pending confirmation in our country.

Background: Existing surveys on telenursing refer to specific areas of nursing after the implementation of a programme, but telenursing in general has not been fully evaluated from a prospective approach. Aim: Design and statistical validation of a telenursing questionnaire. Methods: A new questionnaire was designed with 18 paired (to avoid leading) questions (Likert-5) plus three dichotomous questions (randomly ordered, inspired by existing validated tests) to analyse the dimensions of: acceptance, usefulness and appropriateness of telenursing from the nursing point of view (7 min test). The questionnaire was validated by classical tests and item response tests (Rasch) using six computer-generated databases with different response profiles (tendency to be positioned against, neutral and positioned in favour) with two degrees of agreement between each pair of responses for each option. Results: Classical testing: Cronbach’s alphas (from 0.8 to 0.95), Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) (0.93 to 0.95) and a significant p < 0.0001 for Bartlett’s test of sphericity were obtained. Rasch analysis: Reliability coefficients (0.94). Warm’s mean weighted likelihood estimates (0.94). Extreme infit-t and outfit-t values (+1.61 to −1.98). Conclusions: Both the classical test and the Rasch approaches confirm the usefulness of the new test for assessing nurses’ positioning in relation to telenursing.

No abstract