To outline current knowledge regarding workplace-based learning about health promotion in individual patient care.

Scoping review.

PubMed, ERIC, CINAHL and Web of Science from January 2000 to August 2023.

We included articles about learning (activities) for healthcare professionals (in training), about health promotion in individual patient care and in the context of workplace-based learning.

The studies were evaluated using a charting template and were analysed thematically using a template based on Designable Elements of Learning Environments model.

From 7159 studies, we included 31 that described evaluations of workplace-based learning about health promotion, around a variety of health promotion topics, for different health professions. In the articles, health promotion was operationalised as knowledge, skills or attitudes related to specific lifestyle factors or more broadly, with concepts such as health literacy, advocacy and social determinants of health. We assembled an overview of spatial and instrumental, social, epistemic and temporal elements of learning environments in which health promotion is learnt.

The studies included in our analysis varied greatly in their approach to health promotion topics and the evaluation of learning outcomes. Our findings suggest the importance of providing opportunities for health profession learners to engage in authentic practice situations and address potential challenges they may experience translating related theory into practice. Additionally, our results highlight the need for conscious and articulated integration of health promotion in curricula and assessment structures. We recommend the exploration of opportunities for health profession students, professionals and patients to learn about health promotion together. Additionally, we see potential in using participatory research methods to study future health promotion learning.

Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6QPTV.

The objective of this study is to analyse the relationship and psychosocial issues between working during the COVID-19 pandemic in primary healthcare (PHC) facilities located in the most vulnerable health region (HR) of the Federal District of Brazil (FDB) compared with a lesser region.

Mixed-method study data. The questionnaire was based on the World Health Survey and the Convid Behavioural Survey. Quantitative data were described in absolute and relative frequency. Pearson’s ² test verified differences according to the region (significance level

A representative sample of PHC professionals working at the Western HR and Central HR of the FDB.

111 women and 27 male PHC professionals, aged ≥ 18 years.

Psychosocial variables—personal emotions towards the clients, social relationships and use of psychoactive substances (PAS).

An online questionnaire (27 questions) and 1 open-ended question.

The sample comprised 138 PHC professionals; 80.40% were female aged between 40 and 49 years old (27.3%); declared themselves as black/pardo (58.7%); were married (53.60%), and worked in family healthcare teams (47.80%). No association between working in the most vulnerable HR compared with the least one and presenting psychosocial issues, except for anger towards clients (p=0.043). 55.10% worked much more than usual, 60.80% reported being depressed, 78.20% anxious, 76.80% stressed, 77.50% had no empathy and 78.30% felt isolated from family/friends. Towards the clients, 59.40% reported empathy and 72.5% no affection/care. The consume of psychotropic medications was reported by 34.80%, and 14.50% increased alcohol/PAS use. Qualitative data leverage quantitative findings: work overload, the indifference of the Federal Government and distance from family/friends.

Working in the most vulnerable region and in the least one affects the psychosocial aspects of the PHC professionals equally.