Pain during PDT was correlated with the PpIX fluorescence in the treatment area prior to illumination. Pain was reduced using a lower fluence rate during PDT of acne.

An altered body image has a psychosocial impact on patients with visible psoriasis that may result in increased body coverage, sexual inhibitions and reduced exercise activity. This further affects self-image negatively and influences how people with psoriasis handle the risk of metabolic syndrome. Assessment of patient body image using components of the BIM increases the possibility of identifying important psychosocial aspects of psoriasis and the related risk of metabolic syndrome and is thus a valuable support for the DLQI questionnaires.

There is a demand for pain relief during photodynamic therapy. We therefore investigated the efficacy and side-effects of topical morphine gel 0.3% for pain relief during topical photodynamic therapy in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The study involved 28 patients with actinic keratoses or basal cell carcinomas. Each patient was treated with photodynamic therapy after superficial curettage of 2 treatment areas that were randomized to morphine gel or placebo gel. The gels were applied 15 min before illumination. Pain was assessed pre-illumination, during, and immediately after illumination, using a numeric rating scale. Skin redness was determined by reflectance spectrophotometry and the size of the treated area by protoporphyrin IX fluorescence. There were no differences between the areas according to accumulation of protoporphyrin IX (p =0.34), size of fluorescence areas (p =0.84), or skin redness (p =0.95). There was no significant pain relief of topical morphine gel compared with placebo gel (p >0.23). This negative result suggests that opioid receptors may not be involved in the pain induced by photodynamic therapy.

The aims of the study were to determine the prevalence of skin tears in the extremities and to explore factors associated with development of skin tears in inpatients at a Danish hospital. The study was designed as a point prevalence survey and included 202 patients in the age range 19-99 (mean: 70·7, SD: 16·5). The patients were assessed for presence of skin tears, numbers, locations and previous skin tears. Data were collected using a data collection sheet developed for a previous study. The survey team consisted of four specialist nurses. Data were collected over a period of 24 hours spread over 3 days. Of the 202 patients, 23 had skin tears, yielding a prevalence of 11·4%. In total, 40 skin tears were observed. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that previous skin tears (odds ratio (OR): 9·3, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2·6-33·4, P < 0·001), ecchymosis (OR: 5·6, CI: 1·4-23·2, P < 0·017) and risk of falling (OR: 3·8, CI: 1·2-12·0, P < 0·021) were significantly associated with development of skin tears. The prevalence of skin tears in this study (11·4%) matches other international observations. The following risk factors were recognised: previous skin tear, ecchymosis and risk of falling. These factors could be used to identify patients requiring prevention of skin tears.

Background: Health care workers (HCWs) report frequent adverse skin reactions (ASRs) due to face personal protective equipment (F-PPE) use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Objectives: To describe self-reported ASRs among HCWs using F-PPE; investigate background factors, such as chronic skin diseases and skin types (dry, oily, combination, sensitive), and determine whether HCWs took preventive methods against ASRs.Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed to 22 993 HCWs at hospitals. Results:The prevalence of ASRs was 61.9% based on 10 287 responders. Different types of F-PPE caused different reactions. The most common ASRs from surgical masks were spots and pimples (37.2%) and from FFP3 masks was red and irritated skin (27.3%).A significantly higher proportion of HCWs with chronic skin diseases had ASRs (71.6%) than those without chronic skin diseases (59.7%) (P < .001). Some skin types were more prone to ASRs (sensitive skin [78.8%] vs dry skin [54.3%]; P = .001). HCWs using F-PPE for >6 hours versus <3 hours per day had a four times higher ASR risk (P = <.001). Nearly all HCWs used preventive and/or counteractive methods (94.2%).Conclusions: It is important to consider background factors, such as chronic skin diseases and skin types, to prevent and counteract ASRs due to F-PPE use.

The low prevalence found in this study may reflect the focus on prevention of skin tears that the nursing home has maintained over the past year. Nevertheless, the appropriate prevention and management of residents with skin tears is an ongoing challenge for health professionals.

This study shows that the Health Belief Model can be used to identify and describe factors that influence decisions and behaviour among RTRs regarding sun protective behaviour. We recommend that RTRs are informed about the potential severity of skin cancer, and about the importance of consistent sun protective behaviour.

The ISTAP Skin Tear Classification System was developed with the goal of establishing a global language for describing and documenting skin tears and to raise the health-care community's awareness of skin tears. The Danish translation of the ISTAP classification system supports the earlier ISTAP study and further validates the classification system. The Danish translation of the classification system is vital to the promotion of skin tears in both research and the clinical settings in Denmark.