Patient Unique Stigmatization Holistic tool in dermatology (PUSH-D): Development and validation of a dermatology-specific stigmatization assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: The skin plays an important role in establishing interpersonal relationships, and thus visible skin disorders, which have a significant impact on physical appearance, influence other people's behaviours and attitudes. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a dermatologic-specific questionnaire to evaluate stigmatization in individuals with visible skin conditions. METHODS: Items were generated by a verbatim report based on qualitative interviews with patients with various dermatologic conditions. Subsequently, a study was implemented for psychometric analysis. A dermatology-specific stigmatization questionnaire (PUSH-D) was refined via item reduction according to inter-question correlations, consensus among experts and exploratory factor analysis. Internal consistency was determined by calculating Cronbach's α. Concurrent validity was determined by calculating the correlation between PUSH-D and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). RESULTS: From a primary list of 22 items, PUSH-D was reduced to a 17-item questionnaire, covering two pertinent dimensions based on the exploratory factor analysis. Construct validity was demonstrated, and PUSH-D showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.9). PUSH-D correlated strongly with the DLQI 0.72 (p < 0.001) and moderately with the RSES 0.49 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PUSH-D allows a comprehensive view of the degree of stigmatization in visible skin disorders, as well as the comparability of stigmatization levels across various skin conditions.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on dermatology residents: A nationwide French study.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has changed the practice of all health-care professionals. Determining the impact could prevent repercussions in future crisis. Objectives The objectives of the study were to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dermatology residents' professional practice, working conditions, academic training and mental health. Methods An online questionnaire was sent to all French dermatology residents. We compared the activity of residents working in areas heavily impacted by COVID-19 to others. Logistic multivariate regressions were done, using as outcome variables the negative impact of the COVID crisis on residents' possibility to practice dermatology during the crisis, supervision, academic training and working more than 50 h/week. The last part of the questionnaire was the burnout questionnaire of Maslach. Results A total of 246 residents filled the questionnaire. Residents working in highly impacted COVID areas (odds ratio, OR 0.34 confidence interval, CI [0.18, 0.61], P ≤ 0.001), first-year postgraduate (PGY-1) residents (OR 0.46 CI [0.23, 0.91], P = 0.023) and those in private practice (OR 0.10 CI [0.01, 0.57], P = 0.032) were significantly less able to maintain dermatology activities. Worse supervision was significantly more frequent with non-PGY-1 residents (OR 3.24 CI [1.65, 6.65], P < 0.001). One hundred and eighty one residents claimed the pandemic to have a negative effect on their dermatology curriculum with no difference according to their regions' affection by COVID-19. This was mostly attributed to the cancelation of courses and congresses. PGY-1 residents (OR 2.09 CI [1.09, 4.04], P = 0.029) and residents in highly affected areas (OR 1.79 CI [1.01, 3.18], P = 0.049) were more at risk of working above the maximal legal working time. None of the residents was free of burnout symptoms. Conclusion Dermatology residents have been highly affected by COVID-19. It might be important to have a more integrated healthcare system to fight times of crisis with the least repercussions on residents.

Choice of Systemic Drugs for the Management of Moderate-to-severe Psoriasis: A Cross-country Comparison Based on National Health Insurance Data.

Current management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis may be heterogeneous between European countries, probably due to differences in the organization of care. The aim of this study was to compare the utilization of systemic treatments for psoriasis between 2 coun-tries. All adults with psoriasis who were registered in the French (SNDS) and the Dutch (VEKTIS) national health insurance databases between 2012 and 2016 were eligible for inclusion. In France, 105,035 (15%) of 684,156 patients and, in the Netherlands, 37,405 (28.6%) of 130,822 patients received at least a systemic agent. In France, the proportion of patients treated with systemic agents was constant, while the type of drugs dispensed shifted from non-biological to biological agents. In the Netherlands, the first systemic treatment was methotrexate and, in France, acitretin. In France, the choice of the first biologic was much more variable than it was in the Netherlands, where a large proportion of patients were dispensed ustekinumab. This study highlights discrepancies between France and the Netherlands concerning the choice of first non-biologic agent and first biologic agent for patients with psoriasis. These discrepancies may be due to differences in the healthcare systems between the 2 countries.