BackgroundFor centuries, sunlight has been used for therapeutic purposes. Parents still sun their infants to treat neonatal jaundice, nappy rash or mostly to supply vitamin D for bone development as a consequence of health beliefs. In this study we aimed to assess knowledge and behaviour of parents about benefits of sunlight and sun protection.MethodsIn this study, parents attending to governmental primary healthcare units for their children's routine vaccinations, upon their informed consent, were consecutively enrolled during one month. Data were collected by a semi-structured questionnaire.ResultsThe mean age of 118 enrolled parents and their babies were 27.9 ± 6.5 years and 8.3 ± 5.8 months, respectively. Most of the participants were mothers (93.2%), housewives (81.4%) with an educational level of ≥6 years (71.2%). Sunlight was considered beneficial for bone development (86.4%), diaper rash (5.9%) and neonatal jaundice (12.7%). In case of neonatal jaundice 72.0% of the participants reported that they would consult a physician. Most of the participants (82.2%) were sunning their babies outdoors. Nearly half (49.7%) of them got this information from medical staff. Fifty two percent of the parents were sunning their babies before 10–11 a.m. and/or after 3 p.m. Only 13.6% of parents reported using sunscreen for their babies, and the majority of them were using sun protecting factor ≥ 15. One forth of the sunscreen users was using sunscreen according to their physicians' advice.ConclusionMost of the participants were aware of the benefits of sunlight; especially for bone development. However they were displaying inappropriate behaviour while sunning their babies for health reasons. More education should be given to parents about the danger of sunlight at primary health care units while advising to sun their babies, if any.

BackgroundFamily planning counselling which covers knowledge transfer about contraceptive mode of action, by enabling informed choice, improves compliance to and efficiency of contraceptive methods.The objective of this study was to investigate associations between family planning counselling, counsellor and correct knowledge about mode of action of modern contraceptive methods among married women.MethodsFor this cross-sectional study, stratified (according to current modern contraceptive method in use) random sampling was performed from the registries of two primary health care centres. Main outcomes were; prevalence of family planning counselling, professional background of the counsellor and correct knowledge about mode of action. A semi-structured questionnaire developed by the researchers was applied via face-to-face interview. The answers about mode of action were categorized as correct vs. incorrect by consensus rating.ResultsPrevalence of counselling and correct knowledge about mode of action was 49.0% and 39.3%, respectively. Higher educated women were significantly more likely to know the mode of action (p < 0.001). Being counselled by a physician (54.1%, n = 120) was not associated with correct knowledge about mode of action (p = 0.79). Non-barrier method users were less educated (p = 0.001), more often counselled (60.8% vs. 8.0%) and less knowledgeable (p < 0.001) about mode of action of their contraceptive method, compared to condom users. Nevertheless, counselled non-barrier method users were significantly more likely to know the correct mode of action of their chosen method (p = 0.021) than counselled condom users.ConclusionThe beneficial effect of counselling on knowledge about mode of action of the more complicated, medical (non-barrier) contraceptive methods suggests that the use of family planning counselling services in primary health care should be promoted; furthermore, counselling strategies and content should be re-structured for better efficacy.

In our study, satisfaction was mostly affected by heavy side effects and health risks of the methods resulting in less satisfaction with the contraceptive method among non-barrier method users. Other factors which may influence satisfaction deserve further investigation.

IntroductionThe term orofacial granulomatosis was introduced to encompass the broad spectrum of non-necrotizing granulomatous inflammation in the oral and facial region, including patients with the complete triad of MelkerssonRosenthal syndrome (MRS), chelitis granulomatosa, sarcoidosis, Crohn's disease and infectious disorders such as tuberculosis (1,2). There may be several underlying etiologic mechanisms, with similar clinical and pathologic presentations, often manifesting at different points in time (3).Granulomatous glossitis was first described as a peculiar manifestation of MRS by Schuermann in 1952 (4). The typical triad of MRS is rarely seen simultaneously, and involvement of the tongue as a sole manifestation of MRS is much rarer. In monosymptomatic cases, making a clear diagnosis is difficult, and therefore a complete differential diagnosis for the other recurrent or persistent disorders characterized by macroglossia has to be done (5).Herein we report a case of granulomatous glossitis with no associated systemic disorder that was unresponsive to clofazimine and metronidazole, yet showed minor improvement with tetracycline. Case ReportA 50-year-old man presented with a complaint of enlargement of the tongue associated with small glossal tags. The papules had developed at the edge of the tongue and gradually increased in number during the previous five years. The patient complained of speech impairment, hypersalivation and a burning sensation on eating. He denied swelling of the lips, buccal and labial mucosa, and the face. His medical history was unremarkable except for hypertension that had been controlled with anti-hypertensive drug therapy for the previous 10 years.Dermatologic examination revealed slight enlargement of the tongue with a deep central furrow, multiple shallow radial fissures and multiple white mucosal tags at the edge of the tongue (Figs. 1 and 2).Laboratory investigations including a complete blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, serum electrolytes, hepatic and renal function tests, serum iron level, anti-HIV antibodies, angiotensin converting enzyme level, thyroid function tests, IgG, IgA, IgM, IgE levels, ANA, anti-DNA, 24 hours urine calcium level, and stool examination for the presence of blood were all either negative or within normal limits.