There is conflicting evidence concerning predictors of individual susceptibility to develop irritant contact dermatitis in wet work. A cohort of initially 92 hairdresser apprentices was prospectively followed for 3 years. The association between anamnestic and clinical findings, and multiparametric skin bioengineering data (transepidermal water loss [TEWL], microcirculation, capacitance, pH, sebum, temperature) was investigated. The observation intervals were 3 months in the 1st year of training and 12 months thereafter. Of the 92 apprentices, 6 had already developed hand dermatitis on 1st examination, 20 dropped out or had occupational exposure longer than 7 weeks prior to investigation. Of the remaining 66 participants considered here, 19 (29%) developed moderate or severe dermatitis ("cases"), 32 minimal skin changes, 15 none within the observation period. Average incidence rate of hand dermatitis was 21.1 cases per 100 person years. Atopy score was not associated with the development of dermatitis, nor were the investigated basal bioengineering parameters, including TEWL, in a multivariable model. However, there was a significant increase in TEWL within the 1st year of training in presumptive "cases". The aim to develop an objective and predictive instrumentary for pre-employment counselling in wet work, by a combination of (a) clinical and (b) relevant non-invasive bioengineering parameters, has not yet been accomplished. Skin-provocation tests employing bioengineering seem to be required. Notwithstanding, work-related monitoring of basal biophysical skin-functions may become useful in the secondary prevention of occupational dermatitis.

EditorAmong the basic protective measures against COVID-19, the need to wash hands frequently and in a prolonged way using soap and to regularly use alcohol-based hand sanitizers is well established for the whole population. Healthcare workers in general, and particularly those involved in the direct care of COVID-19-infected patients, have to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) daily for many hours and also accomplish general preventive measurements outside their work. Cutaneous adverse reactions can develop that need to be prevented, identified and therapeutically managed. According to the data reported by Lin et al., 1 based on the experience from healthcare workers in Wuhan, adverse skin reactions were reported in 74% of responders (n = 376) to a general survey. The most commonly reported types of eruptions were skin dryness or desquamation (68.6%), papules or erythema (60.4%) and maceration (52.9%). Hands, cheeks and nasal bridge were the top three most commonly affected areas. Adverse skin reactions showed in the univariate analysis a significant association with sex, epidemic level, working place, duration of full-body PPE use, getting soaking wet after work and frequency of handwashing. The multivariate analysis showed an increased number of reactions in females, who work at the hospitals, in inpatient wards and use full-body PPE for over 6 h per day. Similar results were reported from Chengdu, with 198 of 404 (49.0%) respondents to an online survey from the healthcare sector reporting mask-related skin reactions, mostly, in 169, in the face following prolonged use of N95 and medical-grade masks. Of note, worsening of preexisting facial skin problems such as acne or rosacea was frequently reported. 2 This scenario is certainly similar to what the health care personnel is suffering nowadays in Europe. 3 The identification of these cutaneous reactions, how to prevent and treat them is the objective of this document.

No abstract

The occurrence of late reactions to PPD may be influenced by patch test concentration and duration. PPD 0.4-0.5% pet. may cause late reactions indicative of active sensitization.

Background Chronic visible skin diseases are highly prevalent, and patients affected frequently report feeling stigmatised. Interventions to reduce stigmatisation are rare. Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured short intervention in reducing stigmatising attitudes towards psoriasis in future educators. Methods The intervention consisted of four components: (1) self‐reflection, (2) education on skin diseases, (3) contact between participants and a person with psoriasis and (4) practising of knowledge via case studies. A quasi‐experimental, pre–post study design was chosen with a nonrandomized contemporaneous control group that attended regular lessons. The main outcomes were participants' desire for social distance, stereotype endorsement, illness‐related misconceptions and intended behaviour. Intervention effects were analysed using mixed repeated‐measures analysis of variance, with Bonferroni post‐hoc tests for pairwise comparisons. Results The sample consisted of 221 students attending vocational training as educators (n = 118 intervention group, n = 103 control group). While no effect of the intervention was found in social distance, small to large effect sizes were observed for intended behaviour (r = .14), illness‐related misconceptions (r = .28) and stereotype endorsement (r = .42). The intervention group reported significantly higher satisfaction with the seminar compared to the control group. Conclusions Overall, the short intervention was effective at reducing stigmatising attitudes in future educators. In perspective, revised versions could help in reducing stigmatisation in various demographics and promote patient empowerment by acknowledging and including them as experts on their own behalf. Patient or Public Contribution Patient advocate groups were consulted and involved in the superordinate destigmatization research programme and intervention.