Subjective as well as objective factors should be included in the assessment of disease severity and follow-up of patients with vitiligo. A simple perceived severity scale is useful in clinical practice.

No abstract

Overall, this study provides evidence of the usefulness of beauty treatments for breast-cancer patients, in combination with routine care. Although these treatments did not seem to alleviate psychological distress directly, they had a beneficial impact on body image and may strengthen patients' social support and self-esteem.

Background: Tumour extension beyond the mesorectal plane (ymrT4) occurs in 5-10 per cent of patients with rectal cancer and 10 per cent of patients develop locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) after primary surgery. There is global variation in healthcare delivery for these conditions. Methods: An international benchmark trial of the management of ymrT4 tumours and LRRC was undertaken in France and Australia between 2015 and 2017. Heterogeneity in management and operative decision-making were analysed by comparison of surgical resection rates, blinded intercountry reading of pelvic MRI, quality-of-life assessment and qualitative evaluations. Results: Among 154 patients (97 in France and 57 in Australia), 31⋅8 per cent had ymrT4 disease and 68⋅2 per cent LRRC. The surgical resection rates were 88 and 79 per cent in France and Australia respectively (P = 0⋅112). The concordance in operative planning was low (= 0⋅314); the rate of pelvic exenteration was lower in France than Australia both in clinical practice (36 of 78 versus 34 of 40; P < 0⋅001) and in theoretical conditions (10 of 25 versus 50 of 57; P = 0⋅002). The R0 resection rate was lower in France than Australia for LRRC (25 of 49 versus 18 of 21; P = 0⋅007) but not for ymrT4 tumours (21 of 26 versus 15 of 15; P = 0⋅139). Morbidity rates were similar. Patients who underwent non-exenterative procedures had higher scores on the mental functioning subscale at 12 months (P = 0⋅047), and a lower level of distress at 6 months (P = 0⋅049). Qualitative analysis highlighted five categories of psychosocial factors influencing treatment decisions: patient, strategy, specialist, organization and culture. Conclusion: This international benchmark trial has highlighted the differences in worldwide treatment of locally advanced and LRRC. Standardized care should improve outcomes for these patients.

BackgroundComplementary and Alternative Medicines (CAM) are widely used by cancer patients, despite limited evidence of efficacy. Manipulative and body-based practices are some of the most commonly used CAM. This systematic review evaluates their benefits in oncology.MethodA systematic literature review was carried out with no restriction of language, time, cancer location or type. PubMed, CENTRAL, PsycArticle, PsychInfo, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection and SOCindex were queried. Inclusion criteria were adult cancer patients and randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing manipulative and body-based complementary practices on psychological and symptom outcomes. Effect size was calculated when applicable.ResultsOf 1624 articles retrieved, 41 articles were included: massage (24), reflexology (11), acupressure (6). Overall, 25 studies showed positive and significant effects on symptom outcomes (versus 9 that did not), especially pain and fatigue. Mixed outcomes were found for quality of life (8 papers finding a significant effect vs. 10 which did not) and mood (14 papers vs. 13). In most studies, there was a high risk of bias with a mean Jadad score of 2, making interpretation of results difficult.ConclusionThese results seem to indicate that manipulative CAM may be effective on symptom management in cancer. However, more robust methodologies are needed. The methodological requirements of randomized controlled trials are challenging, and more informative results may be provided by more pragmatic study design.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has affected people’s engagement in health behaviors, especially those that protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 transmission, such as handwashing/sanitizing. This study investigated whether adherence to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) handwashing guidelines (the outcome variable) was associated with the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic, as measured by the following 6 indicators: (i) the number of new cases of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (a country-level mean calculated for the 14 days prior to data collection), (ii) total cases of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality accumulated since the onset of the pandemic, and (iii) changes in recent cases of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (a difference between country-level COVID-19 morbidity/mortality in the previous 14 days compared to cases recorded 14–28 days earlier). Methods The observational study (#NCT04367337) enrolled 6064 adults residing in Australia, Canada, China, France, Gambia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, and Switzerland. Data on handwashing adherence across 8 situations (indicated in the WHO guidelines) were collected via an online survey (March–July 2020). Individual-level handwashing data were matched with the date- and country-specific values of the 6 indices of the trajectory of COVID-19 pandemic, obtained from the WHO daily reports. Results Multilevel regression models indicated a negative association between both accumulation of the total cases of COVID-19 morbidity (B = −.041, SE = .013, p = .013) and mortality (B = −.036, SE = .014 p = .002) and handwashing. Higher levels of total COVID-related morbidity and mortality were related to lower handwashing adherence. However, increases in recent cases of COVID-19 morbidity (B = .014, SE = .007, p = .035) and mortality (B = .022, SE = .009, p = .015) were associated with higher levels of handwashing adherence. Analyses controlled for participants’ COVID-19-related situation (their exposure to information about handwashing, being a healthcare professional), sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, marital status), and country-level variables (strictness of containment and health policies, human development index). The models explained 14–20% of the variance in handwashing adherence. Conclusions To better explain levels of protective behaviors such as handwashing, future research should account for indicators of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registration Clinical Trials.Gov, #NCT04367337

A short form (42 items) of the Ways of Coping Checklist was administered to 468 French men and women. A factor analysis of the responses yielded three factors, accounting for about 35% of the total variance, and named Problem-focused Coping, Emotion-focused Coping, and Social Support seeking. The first two dimensions are close to those generally described in the literature. Some interesting relationships of scores appeared between personality and coping, notably, between anxiety and emotion-focused coping.

These results provide new insights on the involvement of the partner in decision-making. Thus, it now seems crucial to develop a prospective study, which will help understand the progression of the decision-making process over time. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Most people deal with intrusive life events such as cancer and the care trajectory together with their intimate partners. Shared decision-making between patients and physicians is now the 'gold standard' in Western Europe and the United States. However, in the context of breast reconstruction (BR) after cancer, factors guiding the decision-making process for BR, especially the potential involvement of the partner, are not very well understood. What does this study add? Provides a qualitative insight on the specific nature of heterosexual couples' representations regarding the decision-making process for breast reconstruction after cancer. Reveals that the decision-making process is often reported as an interrelated experience by the couples and as a dyadic stressor. Underlines the consultative function of partners with women engaged in breast reconstruction.