Since vaccination coverage in Serbia has been decreasing and health professionals have been identified as the most important factor in making decisions about immunization, vaccination knowledge and attitudes of students, especially medical students, are of particular interest. A cross-sectional survey was carried out on three groups of 509 Belgrade University students (medical, law and engineering students). The data were collected using an on-line questionnaire posted to student groups and included the Vaccine Knowledge Questionnaire and Attitudes Toward Vaccination Scale. This survey also included questions about demographic characteristics and perceived negative experiences. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed. There was a significant difference in the Vaccine Knowledge score (F=40.48, p<0.01) among the three groups of students. Medical students (N=251, Mean=4.47, SD=1.71) had significantly higher mean knowledge scores than did law (N=128, Mean=2.80, SD=1.56) or engineering students (N=130, Mean=3.98, SD=1.81). Compared with the law (Mean=49.77, SD=10.23) and engineering students (Mean=57.62, SD=12.21), medical students (Mean=59.52, SD=9.62) also had significantly higher attitude scores (F=37.56, p<0.01). These findings demonstrate general positive attitudes of Serbian students toward immunization. However, some knowledge gaps were identified. Multivariate analysis showed that those who had better vaccine knowledge, those who studies medicine, those who attended at university for more years, and those who do not know someone who had a negative experience with vaccines were more likely to have positive attitudes toward vaccination. Considering the growing vaccination hesitance in the general population, this is an important result that indicates that medical students are possible important participants in future public health campaigns. A strong association between vaccine knowledge and attitudes implies recommendations to introduce a specialized vaccination curriculum at both the undergraduate and graduate levels of medical study.

Rationale and Aim: At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the Serbian government instituted a 24-h curfew for people aged ≥65 years for 2 months. The aim of this study was to examine the experiences and perceptions of curfew for older people in Serbia 15 months after the curfew had ended.Methods: In-depth interviews were carried out with 23 older adults from urban areas in Serbia. We identified the first three participants, while others were selected using the snowballing method. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and data were analyzed according to guidelines for qualitative studies.Results: Six topics emerged: (1) perception of the curfew announcement; (2) attitude toward the curfew; (3) organization of daily living; (4) mood; (5) frustrations/limitations and 6) making sense of the curfew 15 months after. Older people in this study overall remember not feeling disturbed by the curfew because they perceived it as prevention, especially because this population group is considered to have the highest rate of mortality from COVID-19. Some people remember being extremely frustrated because of the restrictions and considered them unnecessary. Most people remembered that the lack of social interactions and lack of physical activity were the most difficult to cope with.Conclusions: Although challenging and bothersome, the majority of older people in this study accepted the curfew as an appropriate measure to avoid catching the virus and combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions to the functioning of societies and their health systems. Prior to the pandemic, health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) were particularly stretched and vulnerable. The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) sought to systematically identify priorities for health research that would have the potential to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs. Methods The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method was used to identify COVID-19-related research priorities. All ISoGH members were invited to participate. Seventy-nine experts in clinical, translational, and population research contributed 192 research questions for consideration. Fifty-two experts then scored those questions based on five pre-defined criteria that were selected for this exercise: 1) feasibility and answerability; 2) potential for burden reduction; 3) potential for a paradigm shift; 4) potential for translation and implementation; and 5) impact on equity. Results Among the top 10 research priorities, research questions related to vaccination were prominent: health care system access barriers to equitable uptake of COVID-19 vaccination (ranked 1st), determinants of vaccine hesitancy (4th), development and evaluation of effective interventions to decrease vaccine hesitancy (5th), and vaccination impacts on vulnerable population/s (6th). Health care delivery questions also ranked highly, including: effective strategies to manage COVID-19 globally and in LMICs (2nd) and integrating health care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs (3rd). Additionally, the assessment of COVID-19 patients’ needs in rural areas of LMICs was ranked 7th, and studying the leading socioeconomic determinants and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs using multi-faceted approaches was ranked 8th. The remaining questions in the top 10 were: clarifying paediatric case-fatality rates (CFR) in LMICs and identifying effective strategies for community engagement against COVID-19 in different LMIC contexts. Interpretation Health policy and systems research to inform COVID-19 vaccine uptake and equitable access to care are urgently needed, especially for rural, vulnerable, and/or marginalised populations. This research should occur in parallel with studies that will identify approaches to minimise vaccine hesitancy and effectively integrate care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs. ISoGH calls on the funders of health research in LMICs to consider the urgency and priority of this research during the COVID-19 pandemic and support studies that could make a positive difference for the populations of LMICs.

No abstract

We conducted a knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) survey of fragile X-associated disorders (FXD) in Serbia in order to obtain baseline quantitative and qualitative KAP data on fragile X mental retardation 1 gene (FMR1) pre- and full mutations (PM, FM). The survey's 16-item questionnaire included a knowledge component (12/16), such as self-assessment knowledge (SAK) and factual knowledge (FK, 2/5 questions for PM, FXTAS and FXPOI). Education-directed attitudes in the FXD field and FMR1 DNA testing practices had 4/16 items, including brief case vignettes of FXTAS and FXPOI, respectively. The study's cohort consisted of primary care physicians (referred to as “physicians” in the rest of the text) throughout Serbia (n = 284, aged 26–64 years, 176/284, 62.2% in Belgrade, Serbia) and senior medical students (n = 245, aged 23–30 years; 33.5% males) at the Belgrade School of Medicine. Strikingly, half of the survey respondents indicated “not having any” knowledge for the fragile X gene premutation and FXD. Physicians were more likely to indicate “not having any” knowledge than students (41.2% of physicians vs. 13.1% of students, P < 0.05). Roughly half of the students had “minimal knowledge” (53.5 vs. 30.5% of physicians, P < 0.05). Low FK was common in the cohort, as few physicians had “all correct answers” (7.5 vs. 3.7% of students, P < 0.05; 16.5 vs. 9.5% of students for the 2/5 premutation-related questions). Statistical analyses identified physicians' practice setting and length of clinical experience as predictors of the lack of FK on questions related to FXD. Physicians were more likely than students to indicate “strongly agreed” to expand their knowledge of the gene premutation and FXD (90.9 vs. 66.7% of students, P < 0.01). However, students more frequently indicated that they are willing to recommend DNA testing in their future practices than physicians (93.5 vs. 64.8% of physicians, P < 0.001). In conclusion, there is a major gap in knowledge regarding fragile X gene PM and FXD among the study's participants in Serbia. The study's informative-educational survey serves as an initial step in the process of enhancing the KAP of medical professionals with regards to the fragile X gene premutation and FXD.