Background The COVID-19 pandemic triggered vast governmental lockdowns. The impact of these lockdowns on mental health is inadequately understood. On the one hand such drastic changes in daily routines could be detrimental to mental health. On the other hand, it might not be experienced negatively, especially because the entire population was affected. Methods The aim of this study was to determine mental health outcomes during pandemic induced lockdowns and to examine known predictors of mental health outcomes. We therefore surveyed n = 9,565 people from 78 countries and 18 languages. Outcomes assessed were stress, depression, affect, and wellbeing. Predictors included country, sociodemographic factors, lockdown characteristics, social factors, and psychological factors. Results Results indicated that on average about 10% of the sample was languishing from low levels of mental health and about 50% had only moderate mental health. Importantly, three consistent predictors of mental health emerged: social support, education level, and psychologically flexible (vs. rigid) responding. Poorer outcomes were most strongly predicted by a worsening of finances and not having access to basic supplies. Conclusions These results suggest that on whole, respondents were moderately mentally healthy at the time of a population-wide lockdown. The highest level of mental health difficulties were found in approximately 10% of the population. Findings suggest that public health initiatives should target people without social support and those whose finances worsen as a result of the lockdown. Interventions that promote psychological flexibility may mitigate the impact of the pandemic.

Melanoma incidence is increasing rapidly worldwide among white-skinned populations. Earlier diagnosis is the principal factor that can improve prognosis. Defining high-risk populations using risk prediction models may help targeted screening and early detection approaches. In this systematic review, we searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for primary research studies reporting or validating models to predict risk of developing cutaneous melanoma. A total of 4,141 articles were identified from the literature search and six through citation searching. Twenty-five risk models were included. Between them, the models considered 144 possible risk factors, including 18 measures of number of nevi and 26 of sun/UV exposure. Those most frequently included in final risk models were number of nevi, presence of freckles, history of sunburn, hair color, and skin color. Despite the different factors included and different cutoff values for sensitivity and specificity, almost all models yielded sensitivities and specificities that fit along a summary ROC with area under the ROC (AUROC) of 0.755, suggesting that most models had similar discrimination. Only two models have been validated in separate populations and both also showed good discrimination with AUROC values of 0.79 (0.70-0.86) and 0.70 (0.64-0.77). Further research should focus on validating existing models rather than developing new ones.

Smartphone health applications ('apps') are widely available but experts remain cautious about their utility and safety. We reviewed currently available apps for the detection of melanoma (July 2014), aimed at general community, patient and gen-eralist clinician users. A proforma was used to extract and assess each app that met the inclusion criteria, and we undertook content analysis to evaluate their content and the evidence applied in their development. Thirty-nine apps were identified with the majority available only for Apple users. Over half (n = 22) provided information or education about melanoma, ultraviolet radiation exposure prevention advice, and skin self-examination strategies, mainly using the ABCDE (A, Asymmetry ; B, Border; C, Colour; D, Diameter; E, Evolving) method. Half (n = 19) helped users take and store images of their skin lesions either for review by a dermatologist or for self-monitoring to identify change, an important predictor of melanoma; a similar number (n = 18) used reminders to help users monitor their skin lesions. A few (n = 9) offered expert review of images. Four apps provided a risk assessment to patients about the probability that a lesion was malignant or benign, and one app calculated users' future risk of melanoma. None of the apps appeared to have been validated for diagnostic accuracy or utility using established research methods. Smartphone apps for detecting melanoma by nonspecialist users have a range of functions including information, education, classification, risk assessment and monitoring change. Despite their potential usefulness, and while clinicians may choose to use apps that provide information to educate their patients, apps for melanoma detection require further validation of their utility and safety. What's already known about this topic? • Earlier detection of melanoma would allow timely treatment and could improve outcomes. • Although smartphone applications ('apps') are recognized as having potentially wide use in dermatology and oncology, experts have expressed caution concerning their diagnostic utility and safety. What does this study add? • We identified almost 40 smartphone apps available to detect or prevent melanoma by nonspecialist users including previously unaffected individuals, patients previously diagnosed with skin cancer, and generalist clinicians. • Most apps gave advice or education about melanoma, ultraviolet radiation exposure preventive advice, and skin self-examination strategies; half of the apps enabled patients to capture and store images of their skin lesions either for review by a dermatologist or for self-monitoring to identify change, an important predictor of melanoma; only four apps provided a risk assessment about a skin lesion.

As the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, engaging the public in adherence to precautionary measures for preventing COVID-19 spread or infection becomes difficult. The present study aims to extend our understanding of how illness perceptions, coping, and self-efficacy affect adherence to precautionary measures among the public. An online survey was administered between April and June 2020 to a sample of 514 Hong Kong citizens. Variables considered were illness perceptions toward COVID-19, problem-solving, avoidance-based coping, self-efficacy, as well as adherence to precautionary measures including physical distancing, limiting unnecessary travelling, and washing hands regularly with soap and water. Adjusted structural equation model showed that illness perceptions toward COVID-19 had significant direct effect on their adherence to precautionary measures (unstandardized β = 0.50, [95% CI, 0.28, 0.80], p = 0.001), and indirect effects through avoidance-based coping (β = −0.10 [95% CI, −0.26, −0.01], p = 0.016) and self-efficacy (β = −0.10, [95% CI, −0.18, −0.01], p = 0.025). These results imply that apart from emphasizing the health hazards of a novel infectious disease, an effective public health intervention and crisis communication should address avoidance-based coping and self-efficacy of the public in adherence to precautionary measures for COVID-19.

reports to be a stakeholder of the Institute for health training online (GET.ON), which aims to implement scientific findings related to the present research into routine care. He also received consultancy fees from several companies, such as Minddistrict, Lantern, and German health insurance companies. All other authors do not report any conflict of interest.

BACKGROUND The outbreak of novel viruses like COVID-19 creates many uncertainties for scientists, political leaders, and communities alike. In the absence of an effective vaccine or treatment for COVID-19, it is population-level behavioural changes, such as hand washing or self-isolation when symptomatic that are central to reducing transmission. Health authorities are faced with the challenge of how best to communicate appropriate behaviours to mitigate the risk to the public. It is crucial to understand not only the best ways of communicating this information but also how populations might respond. AIMS To conduct a rapid review to identify and synthesise evidence relating to: a) What characterises effective public health messages for managing risk and preventing disease during public health crises? and b) What influences people’s responses to public health messages about health risk communication? FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Key recommendations should be considered when designing and delivering public health messages: engage communities in the development of public health messaging, using credible and legitimate sources, address uncertainty immediately and with transparency, focus on unified messages from all sources, and develop messages aimed at increasing understanding, inducing social responsibility and empowering personal control. Embedding the principles of behavioural science into public health messaging is an important step towards more effective health risk communication.

BackgroundThe National Health Service (NHS) Health Check is a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment and management programme in England aiming to increase CVD risk awareness among people at increased risk of CVD. There is no tool to assess the effectiveness of the programme in communicating CVD risk to patients.AimsThe aim of this paper was to develop a questionnaire examining patients’ CVD risk awareness for use in health service research evaluations of the NHS Health Check programme.MethodsWe developed an 85-item questionnaire to determine patients’ views of their risk of CVD. The questionnaire was based on a review of the relevant literature. After review by an expert panel and focus group discussion, 22 items were dropped and 2 new items were added. The resulting 65-item questionnaire with satisfactory content validity (content validity indices≥0.80) and face validity was tested on 110 NHS Health Check attendees in primary care in a cross-sectional study between 21 May 2014 and 28 July 2014.ResultsFollowing analyses of data, we reduced the questionnaire from 65 to 26 items. The 26-item questionnaire constitutes four scales: Knowledge of CVD Risk and Prevention, Perceived Risk of Heart Attack/Stroke, Perceived Benefits and Intention to Change Behaviour and Healthy Eating Intentions. Perceived Risk (Cronbach’s α=0.85) and Perceived Benefits and Intention to Change Behaviour (Cronbach’s α=0.82) have satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s α≥0.70). Healthy Eating Intentions (Cronbach’s α=0.56) is below minimum threshold for reliability but acceptable for a three-item scale.ConclusionsThe resulting questionnaire, with satisfactory reliability and validity, may be used in assessing patients’ awareness of CVD risk among NHS Health Check attendees.

The success of large-scale COVID-19 vaccination campaigns is contingent upon people being willing to receive the vaccine. Our study explored COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its correlates in eight different countries around the globe. We analyzed convenience sample data collected between March 2020 and January 2021 as part of the iCARE cross-sectional study. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to explore the correlates of vaccine hesitancy. We included 32,028 participants from eight countries, and observed that 27% of the participants exhibited vaccine hesitancy, with increases over time. France reported the highest level of hesitancy (47.3%) and Brazil reported the lowest (9.6%). Women, younger individuals (≤29 years), people living in rural areas, and those with a lower perceived income were more likely to be hesitant. People who previously received an influenza vaccine were 70% less likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We observed that people reporting greater COVID-19 health concerns were less likely to be hesitant, whereas people with higher personal financial concerns were more likely to be hesitant. Our findings indicate that there is substantial vaccine hesitancy in several countries, with cross-national differences in the magnitude and direction of the trend. Vaccination communication initiatives should target hesitant individuals (women, younger adults, people with lower incomes and those living in rural areas), and should highlight the immediate health, social and economic benefits of vaccination across these settings. Country-level analyses are warranted to understand the complex psychological, socio-environmental, and cultural factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.