Aims To explore the status quo and the influencing factors of residents’ knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) in the prevention and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), and the difficulties or challenges perceived by residents in their preventive practice. Design An online questionnaire survey. Methods The self‐designed questionnaire was distributed among residents online in February 2020. Descriptive statistics, two independent samples t ‐tests, one‐way analysis of variance, Pearson's correlation analysis, multivariate linear regression and content analysis were performed. Results A total of 919 valid questionnaires were collected. The scoring rates of residents’ KAP were 85.2%, 92.9% and 84.4% respectively. Main factors influencing residents’ knowledge included gender and occupation; while those influencing attitude were occupation, family economic level and knowledge; and those influencing practice included place of residence, occupation, with or without chronic disease, knowledge and attitude. Mass media was the primary approach for people to learn the knowledge and information of COVID‐19. Difficulties or challenges faced were mainly lack of protective equipments, concerns about the risk of prevention and control, impact on daily life, work and study, lack of knowledge and consensus, psychological problems and information problems. Conclusion The attitude of residents towards COVID‐19 prevention and control is generally positive. The knowledge and practice have been popularized to a certain extent, but there are still deviations or deficiencies in residents’ understanding of certain important knowledge and the adoption of relevant preventive measures. Evidence‐based tailored public education initiatives are indicated. Impact Findings of this study add important knowledge about residents’ understanding, attitude, practice and the influencing factors on COVID‐19 prevention and control, which serves as a scientific foundation for optimizing the pandemic public education and decision‐making.

Background Under the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses are the mainstay in the fight against the pandemic. Purpose To evaluate potential impact of the pandemic on nurses’ professional identity. Method Self-report questionnaires were distributed online. Data collected were compared with available norms. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were employed to calculate the OR of frontline vs. nonfrontline nurses. Findings The mean of the total score of the scale was 121.12 out of 150. Both the total score and scores on the five dimensions were significantly higher than norms. Frontline nurses had a significantly higher professional identity than non-frontline nurses (total score: odds ratio [OR], 1.19; professional identity evaluation: OR, 1.27; professional social support: OR, 1.18; professional social proficiency: OR, 1.33; and dealing with professional frustration: OR, 1.19). The most frequently mentioned tags were Hope, Frontline, Protection, Outbreak, Work, Situation . Discussion COVID-19 outbreak was associated with an enhancement in the professional identity of nurses.

Risk of second primary malignancy (SPM) is increasing. We aimed to assess the incidence and related risk factors of SPM among breast cancer (BC) patients from this nested case–control study using the SEER database. BC patients with SPM were identified as the case group and SPM‐free patients were defined as the control group. Propensity score matching of cases with controls by the year of the first primary BC diagnosis was conducted at the ratio of 1:5, and 97,242 BC patients were enrolled from 1998 to 2013 after the matching. The incidence of SPM in BC patients stratified by age groups and cancer sites was compared to the general population using the adjusted standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and the risk factors for SPM were examined using Cox proportional hazard regressions. Our study showed BC patients had excess risk for SPM than the general population (adjusted SIR for all cancer sites = 12.94, p < 0.001) and the incidence of SPM among them decreased with age. The risk of SPM was significantly related to the following demographical and clinical variables: age (40–59 vs. 18–39, HR = 1.33; 60–79 vs. 18–39, HR = 2.39; ≥80 vs. 18–39, HR = 2.84), race (black vs. white, HR = 1.12), histological type (lobular BC vs. ductal BC, HR = 1.15), radiotherapy (HR = 1.33), marital status (married vs. single, HR = 0.88) and estrogen receptor status (positive vs. negative, HR = 0.85). Consistent results were found in subgroup analysis stratified by contralateral‐breast SPMs and nonbreast SPMs.

Background: Post-traumatic growth induced from cancer diagnosis and treatment could benefit the prognosis of cancer survivors, but intervention based on selfdisclosure in group is limited.Objective: Aimed to examine the effectiveness of a supportive-expressive group intervention on post-traumatic growth. The impact of the intervention on anxiety and depression were also explored.Design: This randomized clinical trial enrolled patients from June 2017 to September 2018 with a one-month follow-up. Data collectors were blinded to patient grouping.Setting: A single center study in Chengdu, China.Participants: One hundred sixty-eight participants who met the eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 84) or control group (n = 84); 46 were excluded and 122 patients finished the one-month follow-up.Methods: Participants in the intervention group received nurse-led support intervention focusing on topics such as "Being a Patient", "Interpersonal Relationships", "Journey for Recovery", and "Planning the Future" while participants in the control group received health education, rehabilitation training etc. according to the nursing routine of breast cancer patients. The intervention was designed in accordance with the diagnosis and treatment process as well as patient needs. Participants in both groups were evaluated three times (T1-baseline before the intervention, T2-end of the intervention, and T3-1 month follow up). Post-traumatic growth, anxiety and depression were evaluated.Results: Participants in the intervention group reported higher level of post-traumatic growth (p < 0.01 or 0.05) and reduced anxiety and depression (p < 0.01 or 0.05 and p < 0.01 or 0.05). The multilevel model indicated that the intervention significantly promoted post-traumatic growth (β T3 = 7.87, p < 0.05) and dimensions of relating to others (β T3 = 4.26, p < 0.001), personal strength (β T3 = 4.27, p < 0.01), appreciation of life (β T3 = 8.69, p < 0.001), and new possibilities (β T3 = 1.91, p < 0.05), anxiety (β T3 = −3.63, p < 0.001), and depression (β T3 = −2.27, p < 0.001), but had no effect on the dimension of spiritual change. In addition, the multi-level model showed that patients with