RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a promising treatment modality for melanoma in situ (MIS). However, variations in surgical technique limit the generalizability of existing data and may impede future study of MMS in clinical trials. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was selected to establish consensus on optimal MMS techniques for treating MIS in future clinical trials. The Delphi method was selected due to the limited current data, the wide range of techniques used in the field, and the intention to establish a standardized technique for future clinical trials. A literature review and interviews with experienced MMS surgeons were performed to identify dimensions of the MMS technique for MIS that (1) likely impacted costs or outcomes of the procedure, and (2) showed significant variability between surgeons. A total of 8 dimensions of technical variation were selected. The Delphi process consisted of 2 rounds of voting and commentary, during which 44 expert Mohs surgeons across the United States rated their agreement with specific recommendations using a Likert scale. RESULTS: Five of eight recommendations achieved consensus in Round 1. All 3 of the remaining recommendations achieved consensus in Round 2. Techniques achieving consensus in Round 1 included the use of a starting peripheral margin of ≤5 mm, application of immunohistochemistry, frozen tissue processing, and resecting to the depth of subcutaneous fat. Consensus on the use of Wood's lamp, dermatoscope, and negative tissue controls was established in Round 2. CONCLUSIONS: This study generated 8 consensus recommendations intended to offer guidance for Mohs surgeons treating MIS. The adoption of these recommendations will promote standardization to facilitate comparisons of aggregate data in multicenter clinical trials.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Theoretical and methodological research on risk-taking practices often frames risk as an individual choice. While risk does occur at individual level, it is determined by aspirations which are connected to others and society. For many displaced women globally, these aspirations are often linked to the well-being of their children and other household members. This article explores the links between aspirations for the future, gendered household dynamics, and health risk-taking behavior among the Rwandan urban refugee community. METHODS: This analysis drew from participant observation, focus group discussions, and in-depth interviews with 49 male and 42 female household members from 36 Rwandan refugee households in Yaoundé, Cameroon. The fieldwork was conducted over 12 months between May-August 2016, May-August 2017, and February-August 2018. RESULTS: We observed that while there was considerable convergence among household members in aspirations, there was considerable difference in risk-taking practices engaged to achieve them with women often assuming the greatest risks. These gendered realities of risk were not only related to structural concerns including access to different forms of capital, but also to socio-cultural gendered expectations of women, how risks were defined and justified, and household dynamics that drove the gendered reality of observed risk-behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Humanitarian programs and policies are distinctly finite in nature; focused on the short-term needs of persons affected by conflict. However, many humanitarian situations in the world are protracted. In the midst of these challenges, themes of future-orientation, possibilities, and shared aspirations for a better future emerge. These aspirations and the practices, including risk-taking practices that stem from them are central to understand if we are to ensure a just peace and stability in displaced communities throughout the developing world. Our analysis highlights the need to examine sociocultural dimensions related to hopes for the future, gender, and household dynamics as a way to understand risk behavior. We propose this can be done through a framework of precarious hope which we put forward in this paper, in which hope, agency, sociocultural and political economic contexts situate risk as a gendered practice of hope amidst constraint.