Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic relapsing, remitting disease which results in the formation of inflammatory nodules and pustules in intertriginous areas. HS is a complex disease with known psychosocial impact. Adalimumab is a biologic, used for treatment resistant HS, which working by inactivating TNF‐alpha. Our primary objective was to determine the effects of adalimumab on HS‐PGA and DLQI scores in patients with HS that had been on the treatment for at least 6 months. Our secondary objective was to note and assess the significance of adverse effects and impacts on wider health, namely occupational and social. A retrospective cross‐sectional study was performed using clinic notes from routine follow ups in biologic clinics in three specialist HS centers. About 77% (n = 78/101) patients demonstrated improvements in their HS‐PGA scores. Significant improvements in the DLQI scores of the patient cohort (P = .0001, 95% CI −12.8 to −5.9) have also been demonstrated. A total of 31.7% (32/101) patients experienced adverse effects spanning multiple organ systems, with 27.7% (28/101) requiring treatment cessation. Three of these patients stopped due to the worsening of preexisting mental health symptoms. Adalimumab is effective in reducing HS‐PGA and DLQI scores, but patients still complain of systemic effects necessitating drug cessation in some instances. A holistic and multisystemic approach to follow up is required, and there is scope for further studies examining temporal causality in the context of adalimumab and its multisystemic physical and psychological effects.

The COVID‐19 pandemic has necessitated intensified handwashing and mask usage for healthcare staff. A retrospective cross‐sectional study was performed primarily to investigate the potential skin damage and secondary impacts on wellbeing of staff resulting from these practices. Additionally the availability and uptake of occupational health services and moisturisers in the work place was also assessed. The survey was distributed to NHS staff between April and May 2020 and asked questions regarding skin damage, impact on wellbeing and availability and utilisation of occupational health input and moisturisers. Of the 211 responders, 167 washed their hands more than ten times per shift. Three quarters of these reported cracks or fissures in one or more regions of their hands, most frequently to the back of the hands or web spaces. Amongst the 157 staff who wore FFP3 masks, redness of the nasal area was most frequently reported with 8% reporting facial blisters. 36% of staff reported a substantial impact on one or more aspects of their wellbeing. Only 7% of respondents had received specialist advice, yet a quarter (26%) had made or anticipated needing changes to their occupational duties. The majority (63%) felt they required no specialist input, despite 38% of these reporting a substantial detriment to their wellbeing. Handwashing and face mask use is resulting in skin damage amongst healthcare workers during the COVID‐19 pandemic, with associated detriment to wellbeing. Healthcare services need to take action to implement measures to prevent, reduce and treat damage including promotion of available specialist support.

causality inferences. It is possible that ascertainment bias was present.In conclusion, survivors of cancer, especially survivors of haematological malignancies, had a higher co-occurrence of psoriasis. There is a high risk that the findings are due to surveillance bias. The relative contributions of initial misdiagnosis and possible effects of systemic medication on the immune system need further study.

Background Melanoma mortality rates in the US are highest among older men, individuals of lower socioeconomic status (SES), and people of color. To better understand these inequities, a qualitative exploratory study was conducted in Northern and Southern California to generate knowledge about barriers and facilitators of awareness, prevention, and early detection of melanoma in lower SES Latinx and non‐Latinx White (NLW) individuals living in urban and semi‐rural areas. Methods Nineteen focus groups were conducted ( N = 176 adult participants), stratified by race/ethnicity (Latinx, low‐income NLW), geography (semi‐rural, urban), and language (English and Spanish). Inductive and deductive thematic analysis was conducted, and the findings were organized using the socioecological model framework: individual, interpersonal, community, and health system/policy levels. Results Four socioecological themes describe how key factors affect knowledge, perceived risk, preventive behaviors, and melanoma screening. Individual level findings revealed that many participants were not familiar with melanoma, yet were willing to learn through trusted sources. Having brown or darker skin tone was perceived as being associated with lower risk for skin cancer. Interpersonally, social relationships were important influences for skin cancer prevention practice. However, for several Latinx and semi‐rural participants, conversations about melanoma prevention did not occur with family and peers. At the community level, semi‐rural participants reported distance or lack of transportation to a clinic as challenges for accessing dermatology care. Healthcare systems barriers included burdens of additional healthcare costs for dermatology visits and obtaining referral. Conclusions Varying factors influence the awareness levels, beliefs, and behaviors associated with knowledge, prevention, and early detection of melanoma among low‐income Latinx and NLW individuals and in semi‐rural areas. Results have implications for health education interventions. Navigation strategies that target individuals, families, and health care settings can promote improved prevention and early detection of melanoma in these communities.