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.

Prevalence of radiotherapy, chemotherapy and access to supportive care in cancer in Brazil, China, France, Russia and the USA.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to assess the prevalence of treatment with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy in the general adult population of five countries (Brazil, China, France, Russia and the USA) and to evaluate the use of different Supportive Care in Cancer (SCC) services. METHODS: A total of 11,100 individuals representing the general population over 18 years of age were recruited from the five countries via a rigorous quota sampling method. RESULTS: There are between 4.1% and 8.78% of respondents reported having undergone medical cancer treatment. Among these subpopulations, the use of at least one SCC was reported by 63% to 86% of respondents. The most commonly used SCC was psychological counselling in France, dietary counselling in Brazil and China, participating in a focus group in the USA and using alternative medicine in Russia. Alternative medicines were chosen by 50% to 61% of patients in every country. CONCLUSION: This study provides information on the prevalence of patients treated by chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy in representative populations from five countries. Among them, SCC was widely used. However, these uses varied both in proportion and choice, given the cultural differences in patients' and families' health beliefs and values, differences among organisations, in available resources and in ethics and policies among countries.

The Impact of Acne, Atopic Dermatitis, Skin Toxicities and Scars on Quality of Life and the Importance of a Holistic Treatment Approach.

Skin conditions such as acne, atopic dermatitis, skin toxicity from oncology treatment, and scars are among the most common health conditions and negatively impact quality of life (QoL). Yet the physician perception of this impact often varies greatly from the patient perception. This is important because patient illness perception is closely linked with seeking help and treatment adherence behaviors. The objective of this review is to better understand the impact of these four highly prevalent skin conditions on QoL including their health-related economic factors to improve treatment outcomes. The literature search included literature published on QoL with acne, atopic dermatitis, scars (from any cause) and skin toxicities on PubMed between 2015 and 2020. We found that patients with skin conditions have a much higher frequency of altered QoL and psychological distress than those without. Also, skin conditions negatively impact self-image and can cause feelings of isolation, loneliness, lower self-esteem, and lower body satisfaction. Additionally, physical discomfort adds to the psychological distress. These physical and psychological impacts are an enormous financial burden on patients, their families and society. We found evidence that holistic treatment including treating the skin condition itself, providing wider peer and psychological support as well as shared decision-making, therapeutic patient education and dermatologist involvement improves outcomes. Holistic history-taking, checklists, or the use of more formal QoL scoring tools can be incorporated into routine consultations to better assess patient well-being and provide clinicians with important information for adapting treatment to individual patient requirements. In conclusion, this review highlights the overall impact of skin conditions (including psychological and QoL impacts) and the importance of providing holistic care to optimize treatment outcomes. A comprehensive QoL screening tool would be useful to help provide patient-centered treatment.

The burden of osteoarthritis: development and validation of a new assessment tool (BONe'S).

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a specific individual burden questionnaire, BONe'S (Burden of Osteoarthritis New Scale), assessing osteoarthritis (OA) patients in the broadest sense. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Items included in BONe'S were identified by literature review, and patient/healthcare practitioner interviews, and refined via item reduction and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach's α; concurrent validity was assessed by calculating the correlation between BONe'S and the Short Form (SF)-12 Health Survey and Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI). Discriminant validity was analyzed by age, gender and number of OA locations. RESULTS: From an initial list of 56 items, the final BONe'S questionnaire consisted of 20 questions (5 dimensions) based on EFA. BONe'S was evaluated in patients with OA (n = 200; mean age 69.4 ± 7.0 years, 86% of patients aged >60 years, 91.5% women). BONe'S demonstrated excellent internal coherence (Cronbach's α: 0.86). Individual BONe'S dimensions correlated well with the overall BONe'S score (highest: 'Independence' [r = 0.91]; lowest: 'Hygiene & Beauty' [r = 0.56]), and to each other dimension, and also correlated well (inversely) with the SF-12 and, to a slightly lesser extent, the PGWBI. The only exception was 'Budget', but this dimension was important and relevant in the subpopulation of active OA patients (r = 0.40). The mean BONe'S score for subjects with one or two affected joints was significantly lower than for subjects with three or more affected joints. The BONe'S score also differed according to gender and age. The original French BONe'S has also been adapted (linguistically and culturally) to English, Russian and Portuguese. Limitations include the fact that BONe'S was developed in a predominantly female population, in patients receiving a pharmacological intervention, has not been evaluated in a large population and has not been compared with other OA tools, including WOMAC, Lequesne and KOOS. CONCLUSION: The BONe'S questionnaire is a short (20-item) validated tool for evaluating the specific individual burden of OA in a holistic manner.

Profile and management of patients treated for the first time for lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia in four European countries.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the profile and management of patients medically treated for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in primary care in four European countries, as the diagnosis and management of BPH have developed dramatically in the last decade, and recent information from actual practice is insufficient. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational, cross-sectional study was carried out by general practitioners in France (141 patients), Spain (127) and Portugal (50), and by office-based urologists in Germany (162 patients) between July 2005 and June 2006. The physicians were unaware of the study sponsor. Patients aged >or=50 years were recruited if a decision for medical treatment of BPH was taken for the first time on that day. The patient and the investigator had to complete one questionnaire each. RESULTS: The physicians included 480 patients, with a mean (sd) age of 65.0 (7.8) years. The mean (sd) International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 16.0 (7.3). There were geographical differences in age (P = 0.009; patients in Germany being the youngest), IPSS (P = 0.017; patients in Spain having the highest score), quality of life (QoL; IPSS item 8, P < 0.001, the least altered being in Germany), and sexual activity (P = 0.010; the highest proportion of sexually active patients being in Portugal), but not for comorbidities and concomitant medication. The IPSS correlated poorly with age (r = 0.21) and moderately with QoL (r = 0.47). Severe symptoms (IPSS > 19) were not linked with sexual activity (age-adjusted P = 0.378). Serum prostate specific antigen testing, although not recommended for BPH, was widely used (83.8% overall). All other examinations were carried out disparately depending on the country (P < 0.001 each). Digital rectal examination (DRE) and excluding urinary tract infection (urine culture) were used in approximately 75% of study patients, but only half the patients in France had a urine culture, and 52% in Portugal had a DRE. A standardized assessment of symptoms and/or QoL was reported in 45% of study patients, with wide discrepancies among countries, i.e. 77.2% in Germany and 6.0% in Portugal. alpha-blocker monotherapy was the most frequently prescribed treatment (62.5% overall, 87.1% in Germany, 46.1% in France), followed by phytotherapy (23.5%), and 5 alpha-reductase inhibitor monotherapy (3.75%); combinations were rare. Treatment varied according to the severity of the symptoms (P = 0.008), phytotherapy being given to patients with the lowest IPSS, and combinations to those with the highest IPSS. CONCLUSION: There were geographical discrepancies that could be attributed to either different cultural habits or merely organisational differences, e.g. the presence of office urologists in Germany or diverse modes of access to phytotherapy (prescription vs 'over the counter') in the various countries.