It is critical to develop tailored strategies to increase acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine and decrease hesitancy. Hence, this study aims to assess and identify factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Portugal. We used data from a community-based survey, “COVID-19 Barometer: Social Opinion”, which includes data regarding intention to take COVID-19 vaccines, health status, and risk perception in Portugal from September 2020 to January 2021. We used multinomial regression to identify factors associated with intention to delay or refuse to take COVID-19 vaccines. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Portugal was high: 56% would wait and 9% refuse. Several factors were associated with both refusal and delay: being younger, loss of income during the pandemic, no intention of taking the flu vaccine, low confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine and the health service response during the pandemic, worse perception of government measures, perception of the information provided as inconsistent and contradictory, and answering the questionnaire before the release of information regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. It is crucial to build confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine as its perceived safety and efficacy were strongly associated with intention to take the vaccine. Governments and health authorities should improve communication and increase trust.

Social prescribing is an approach that aims to improve health and well-being. It connects individuals to non-clinical services and supports that address social needs, such as those related to loneliness, housing instability and mental health. At the person level, social prescribing can give individuals the knowledge, skills, motivation and confidence to manage their own health and well-being. At the society level, it can facilitate greater collaboration across health, social, and community sectors to promote integrated care and move beyond the traditional biomedical model of health. While the term social prescribing was first popularised in the UK, this practice has become more prevalent and widely publicised internationally over the last decade. This paper aims to illuminate the ways social prescribing has been conceptualised and implemented across 17 countries in Europe, Asia, Australia and North America. We draw from the ‘Beyond the Building Blocks’ framework to describe the essential inputs for adopting social prescribing into policy and practice, related to service delivery; social determinants and household production of health; workforce; leadership and governance; financing, community organisations and societal partnerships; health technology; and information, learning and accountability. Cross-cutting lessons can inform country and regional efforts to tailor social prescribing models to best support local needs.

IntroductionPower relations permeate research partnerships and compromise the ability of participatory research approaches to bring about transformational and sustainable change. This study aimed to explore how participatory health researchers engaged in co-production research perceive and experience ‘power’, and how it is discussed and addressed within the context of research partnerships.MethodsFive online workshops were carried out with participatory health researchers working in different global contexts. Transcripts of the workshops were analysed thematically against the ‘Social Ecology of Power’ framework and mapped at the micro (individual), meso (interpersonal) or macro (structural) level.ResultsA total of 59 participants, with participatory experience in 24 different countries, attended the workshops. At the micro level, key findings included the rarity of explicit discussions on the meaning and impact of power, the use of reflexivity for examining assumptions and power differentials, and the perceived importance of strengthening co-researcher capacity to shift power. At the meso level, participants emphasised the need to manage co-researcher expectations, create spaces for trusted dialogue, and consider the potential risks faced by empowered community partners. Participants were divided over whether gatekeeper engagement aided the research process or acted to exclude marginalised groups from participating. At the macro level, colonial and ‘traditional’ research legacies were acknowledged to have generated and maintained power inequities within research partnerships.ConclusionsThe ‘Social Ecology of Power’ framework is a useful tool for engaging with power inequities that cut across the social ecology, highlighting how they can operate at the micro, meso and macro level. This study reiterates that power is pervasive, and that while many researchers are intentional about engaging with power, actions and available tools must be used more systematically to identify and address power imbalances in participatory research partnerships, in order to contribute to improved equity and social justice outcomes.

No abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic brought social, economic, and health impacts, requiring fast adaptation of health systems. Although information and communication technologies were essential for achieving this objective, the extent to which health systems incorporated this technology is unknown. Objective The aim of this study was to map the use of digital health strategies in primary health care worldwide and their impact on quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We performed a scoping review based on the Joanna Briggs Institute manual and guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) Extension for Scoping Reviews. A systematic and comprehensive three-step search was performed in June and July 2021 in multidisciplinary health science databases and the gray literature. Data extraction and eligibility were performed by two authors independently and interpreted using thematic analysis. Results A total of 44 studies were included and six thematic groups were identified: characterization and geographic distribution of studies; nomenclatures of digital strategies adopted; types of information and communication technologies; characteristics of digital strategies in primary health care; impacts on quality of care; and benefits, limitations, and challenges of digital strategies in primary health care. The impacts on organization of quality of care were investigated by the majority of studies, demonstrating the strengthening of (1) continuity of care; (2) economic, social, geographical, time, and cultural accessibility; (3) coordination of care; (4) access; (5) integrality of care; (6) optimization of appointment time; (7) and efficiency. Negative impacts were also observed in the same dimensions, such as reduced access to services and increased inequity and unequal use of services offered, digital exclusion of part of the population, lack of planning for defining the role of professionals, disarticulation of actions with real needs of the population, fragile articulation between remote and face-to-face modalities, and unpreparedness of professionals to meet demands using digital technologies. Conclusions The results showed the positive and negative impacts of remote strategies on quality of care in primary care and the inability to take advantage of the potential of technologies. This may demonstrate differences in the organization of fast and urgent implementation of digital strategies in primary health care worldwide. Primary health care must strengthen its response capacity, expand the use of information and communication technologies, and manage challenges using scientific evidence since digital health is important and must be integrated into public service.