Search

ObjectiveThe number of patients with chronic diseases and subsequent visits to various healthcare professionals has been rising over the past decades, exposing patients to potential risks of receiving conflicting medication information. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of conflicting information on medications perceived by chronic patients in Switzerland and to understand its impact on patients’ medication self-management and navigation in the healthcare system.ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study included adult patients taking at least one prescribed medication for at least 6 months, who had visited at least two physicians in the past 3 months.Main outcome measuresData on patients’ perceptions of conflicting information were collected in person through a 17-item questionnaire available on paper and electronically with four domains: (1) whether the patient had perceived any conflicting information, (2) categories of conflicting information, (3) impact and (4) sources involved in the conflicting information.ResultsOf the 405 included patients, 47% perceived conflicting information related to one or more medication topics including indication, schedule, dosage, risk, severity or duration of side effects. Patients who perceived conflicting information were prescribed more drugs than those perceiving no conflicting information (pConclusionNearly half the patients in our study perceived conflicting information in the outpatient healthcare system, which can decrease medication effectiveness and pose safety issues. This issue is widely overlooked and unaddressed. Consistency of information among healthcare providers in partnership with patients should be reinforced through guidelines and new models of interprofessional care.

Although overexposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is responsible for cutaneous melanoma and epithelial skin cancer and can cause negative health effects such as sunburn, a “little and often” exposure regime is often suggested to produce naturally recommended vitamin D levels, being essential for skeletal health. This study aimed to quantify solar UV doses needed to trigger 1000 International Units (IU) vitamin D doses and, at the same time, producing sunburn in Switzerland. Solar UV erythema irradiance (in mW/m2) measured at four meteorological stations in Switzerland for the period 2005–2017 were used to evaluate effective solar UV radiation producing 1000 IU vitamin D doses in skin phototype II and III individuals. Daily solar UV exposure durations (in minutes) needed to produce vitamin D with limited sunburn risk were estimated while considering mean vitamin D food intake of the Swiss population and seasonal skin coverage. In summer and spring, with 22% of uncovered skin, 1000 IU vitamin D doses are synthesized in 10–15 min of sun exposure for adults. Exposure durations between erythema risk and 1000 IU vitamin D production vary between 9 and 46 min. In winter and autumn, the recommended vitamin D production without sunburn risks often unachievable, since up to 6.5 h of sun exposure might be necessary considering 8–10% of uncovered skin surface. The vitamin D food intake only represented 10% of the recommended vitamin D production and remained unchanged throughout the year. These findings might clarify why vitamin D deficiency is common in Switzerland. Moreover, exposure durations between recommended vitamin D and increased sunburn risk might only differ by few minutes. Without additional oral vitamin D supplementation, daily doses of vitamin D (1000 IU) are not reachable in autumn and winter months in Switzerland.

Adherence to prescribed medication is suboptimal in 50% of the chronic population, resulting in negative medical and economic outcomes. With the widespread use of mobile phones worldwide, medication adherence apps for mobile phones become promising medication adherence aids thanks to simplicity, user-friendliness, and accessibility for the public. Yet, until today, there is insufficient evidence in favor of using mobile health (mHealth) apps to increase medication adherence. This study aims to develop a methodology for scientific and end-user (patient) mHealth evaluation (a) to identify medication adherence apps search terms, (b) to evaluate identified apps based on scientific criteria, and (c) to report best smartphone apps evaluated by patients. Search terms were identified via literature review and expertise. Firstly, an online questionnaire was developed to identify frequently used search terms by recruited patients. Related medication adherence apps were identified and selected using predefined inclusion criteria. Secondly, identified apps were evaluated thanks to a scientific evaluation method and a created online questionnaire for patient feedback. Recruited patients were invited to test and evaluate the selected apps. Out of 1,833 free-of-charge and 307 paid apps identified, only four free-of-charge and three paid apps remained included in the study after eligibility criteria. None of the selected app reached a high score. Looking at the overall scores, Medisafe (59%), MyTherapy (56%), and Meds on time (44%) received the highest scores in the scientific app evaluation. In the patient evaluation, Dosecast (3.83 out of five points), Medisafe (3.62), and SwissMeds (3.50) received the highest scores. None of the apps in this research has undergone a process for certification, for example, CE marking, through a notified body. Security and data protection aspects of existing apps highly contribute to these low evaluation scores through little information on patient's data processing and storage. This might be corrected through the introduction of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Economic Area (EEA) and more scrutiny through regulatory bodies in the EU/EEA and the USA. None of the applications should be recommended by healthcare providers. In addition, clinical studies with chronic patients are necessary to measure long-term app impacts.

The effects of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation on life on Earth differ greatly. While overexposure to UV rays is harmful, small amounts of exposure are necessary for the synthesis of Vitamin D and good health. To optimize individual exposure to solar UV, it is therefore crucial to use UV data sources representative for entire populations and realistically accounting for various influencing factors. A UV climatology for Switzerland based on satellite data has been developed to provide risk estimates at population level. An algorithm generating ground-based radiation estimate has been transformed from the visible to the UV wavelength domain by adapting both a clear-sky radiation transfer model and a cloud modification factor model using satellite imagery. The algorithm allows the computation of global UV erythemal irradiance at a spatial resolution of 1.5 - 2 km and an hourly temporal resolution over fifteen years. A validation, conducted with measurements from three meteorological stations over ten years, showed that the expanded uncertainty for low hourly UVI values (UVI < 3) is about ± 0.3, while for high hourly UVI values (UVI > 6) it can go up to ± 1.5. In clear-sky situation, the uncertainty is in the range of 10-15%. The climatology developed allows to visualise potential UV exposure at regional and national scale. National prevention intervention could use new strategies to better focus on populations at risk and better tailor available researches. The UV climatology allows a high versatility in adapting the data extraction to the goal of studies using it. Further tailored data extraction and analysis will be necessary to exploit this climatology in a wide range of environmental and occupational health applications. Its development was focused on Switzerland, but the techniques used can be extended globally.

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For this, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors will be conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methods is to assess risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies. In this article, we present and describe the development of such a tool, called the Risk of Bias in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool; report results from RoB-SPEO's pilot testing; note RoB-SPEO's limitations; and suggest how the tool might be tested and developed further. Methods Selected existing RoB tools used in environmental and occupational health systematic reviews were reviewed and analysed. From existing tools, we identified domains for the new tool and, if necessary, added new domains. For each domain, we then identified and integrated components from the existing tools (i.e. instructions, domains, guiding questions, considerations, ratings and rating criteria), and, if necessary, we developed new components. Finally, we elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and agreed upon RoB-SPEO. Nine experts pilot tested RoB-SPEO, and we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each of its domain, rating Pi 0.80 as almost perfect agreement. Results Our review found no standard tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. We identified six existing tools for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews and found that their components for assessing RoB differ considerably. With the new RoB-SPEO tool, assessors judge RoB for each of eight domains: (1) bias in selection of participants into the study; (2) bias due to a lack of blinding of study personnel; (3) bias due to exposure misclassification; (4) bias due to incomplete exposure data; (5) bias due to conflict of interest; (6) bias due to selective reporting of exposures; (7) bias due to difference in numerator and denominator; and (8) other bias. The RoB-SPEO's ratings are low, probably low, probably high, high or no information. Pilot testing of the RoB-SPEO tool found substantial inter-rater agreement for six domains (range of Pi for these domains: 0.51–0.80), but poor agreement for two domains (i.e. Pi of 0.31 and 0.33 for biases due to incomplete exposure data and in selection of participants into the study, respectively). Limitations of RoB-SPEO include that it has not yet been fully performance-tested. Conclusions We developed the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. The tool will be applied and its performance tested in the ongoing systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates., Highlights • WHO and ILO are systematically reviewing occupational exposure prevalence studies. • Assessing risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies is a core step of systematic reviews. • We developed RoB-SPEO, a tool to assess RoB in occupational exposure prevalence studies. • The performance of RoB-SPEO will be tested in the WHO/ILO systematic reviews.

Shade is an important means of protection against harmful effects of sun ultraviolet (UV) exposure, but not all shades are identically protective. UV rays scattered by the atmosphere and surroundings can reach the skin indirectly. To evaluate the relative contribution of the direct, diffuse, and reflected radiation in UV protection provided by different sizes of shade structure, we used SimUVEx v2, a numeric tool based on 3D graphic techniques and ambient ground UV irradiance. The relative UV exposure reduction was expressed by the predictive protection factor (PPF). Shade structures were found to predominantly reduce exposure from direct radiation (from 97.1% to 99.9% for the upper body areas such as the head and the neck), with greater protection from larger shade structures and structures closer above the subject. Legs were the least protected anatomical zone from any shade structure above the subject with PPF ranging from 18.5% to 68.1%. Throughout the day, except for lower solar zenith angles (SZA), small and high shade structures provide the lowest protection (between 20% and 50%), while small and low shade structure show PPF between 35% and 65% and large and high shade structures reach PPF higher than 60%.

Background/purpose Solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) doses received by individuals are highly influenced by behavioural and environmental factors. This study aimed at quantifying hats' sun protection effectiveness in various exposure conditions, by predicting UVR exposure doses and their anatomical distributions. Methods A well-defined 3-dimensional head morphology and 4 hat styles (a cap, a helmet, a middle- and a wide-brimmed hat) were added to a previously published model. Midday (12:00-14:00) and daily (08:00-17:00) seasonal UVR doses were estimated at various facial skin zones, with and without hat wear, accounting for each UVR component. Protection effectiveness was calculated by the relative reduction in predicted UVR dose, expressed as a predictive protection factor (PPF). Results The unprotected entire face received 2.5 times higher UVR doses during a summer midday compared to a winter midday (3.3 vs 1.3 standard erythema dose [SED]) with highest doses received at the nose (6.1 SED). During a cloudless summer day, the lowest mean UVR dose is received by the entire face protected by a wide-brimmed hat (1.7 SED). No hat reached 100% protection at any facial skin zone (PPFmax : 76%). Hats' sun protection effectiveness varied highly with environmental conditions and was mainly limited by the high contribution of diffuse UVR, irrespective of hat style. Larger brim sizes afforded greater facial protection than smaller brim sizes except around midday when the sun position is high. Conclusion Consideration of diffuse and reflected UVR in sun educational messages could improve sun protection effectiveness.

RATIONALE As observed in other countries, some patients may experiment difficulties in obtaining their hepatitis C antiviral medicines (HCVm) in Swiss community pharmacies. There is a lack of data related to access to HCVm at the patient level and notably related to the potential financial risks for the community pharmacies. AIMS (a) To evaluate the potential financial risks for community pharmacist associated with the delivery of HCVm in the Swiss healthcare system; (b) to explore the attitudes and experiences of community pharmacists related to these risks and their consequences for the patients. METHOD A three-step approach was chosen as follows: (a) estimation of costs, incomes, and gross financial results directly related to 3-month treatment with Harvoni based on the drug delivery process (data from 68 patients over 2 years); (b) sensitivity analyses; (c) exploration of local community pharmacists' attitudes and experiences related to the delivery of HCVm in the canton of Vaud (Western Switzerland). RESULTS Two main risks were identified: (a) Incomes do not always cover costs; (b) reimbursement issues could lead to an increase in the requirement for working capital. According to the survey, 23% (14/60) of pharmacies refused to deliver HCVm to at least one patient, and these patients had to find a solution mostly on their own. CONCLUSIONS The scenario analysis clarifies the causes of the possible refusal to deliver HCVm. With the growing number of high-priced medicines, the healthcare systems should have a clear strategy to encourage their delivery by community pharmacies by ensuring seamless and collaborative care for patients. The community pharmacists could be accountable to provide such services-if they get the education, training, and remuneration.

The aim of this study was to assess solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) doses received by the eyes in different exposure situations, and to predict the sun protection effectiveness provided by various styles of sunglasses at facial, periorbital, and ocular skin zones including the cornea and accounting for different head positions. A 3D numeric model was optimized to predict direct, diffuse and reflected erythemally weighted UVR doses received at various skin zones. Precisely defined facial, periorbital, and ocular skin zones, sunglasses (goggles, medium-, and large-sized sunglasses) and three head positions were modeled to simulate daily (08:00-17:00) and midday (12:00-14:00) UVR doses. The shading from sunglasses' frame and lenses' UVR transmission were used to calculate a predictive protection factor (PPF [%]). Highest ocular daily UVR doses were estimated at the uncovered cornea (1718.4 J/m 2 ). Least sun protection was provided by middle-sized sunglasses with highest midday dose at the white lateral (290.8 J/m 2 ) and lateral periorbital zones (390.9 J/m 2 ). Goggles reached almost 100% protection at all skin zones. Large-sized sunglasses were highly effective in winter; however, their effectiveness depended on diffuse UVR doses received. In "looking-up" head positions highest midday UVR doses were received at the unprotected cornea (908.1 J/m 2 ), totally protected when large-sized sunglasses are used. All tested sunglass lenses fully blocked UVR. Sunglasses' protection effectiveness is strongly influenced by geometry, wearing position, head positions, and exposure conditions. Sunglasses do not totally block UVR and should be combined with additional protection means. 3D modeling allows estimating UVR exposure of highly sensitive small skin zones, chronically exposed and rarely assessed.

In the original article, the authorship list was given as “A. Religi1, C. Backes2,3, A. Chatelan2, J.-L. Bulliard2, L. Vuilleumier4, L. Moccozet1, M. Bochud2, D. Vernez3”. This has been updated to “A. Religi*1, C. Backes*2,3, A. Chatelan2, J.-L. Bulliard2, L. Vuilleumier4, L. Moccozet1, M. Bochud 2, D. Vernez3”.

Solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation has a dual effect on human health. Low UV doses promote the photosynthesis of vitamin D and regulate calcium and phosphorus metabolism, while an excessive UV exposure is the main cause of skin cancer, along with eye diseases and premature skin ageing. Nevertheless, the link between UV radiation levels and UV exposure is not fully understood since exposure data are limited and individual anatomical variations in UV doses are significant. For these reasons, a numeric simulation tool (SimUVEx) has been developed and validated in order to predict the dose and distribution of UV exposure received taking into account postural information and ambient irradiation data. SimUVEx is based on 3D graphics techniques usually used to render virtual environments to estimate the exposure of a 3D virtual manikin characterised as a triangular mesh surface. Each triangle receives a certain quantity of solar energy depending on the direct, diffuse and reflected radiation, the body surface orientation to the sun and the shadows from other parts of the body. The goals of the second version of SimUVEx are to move from individual-based to population-based (e.g., Switzerland and, eventually, Europe) exposure assessment, expanding temporal, spatial and morphological simulation capabilities. Outputs from SimUVEx version 2 will allow building exposure scenarios, identifying high-risk situations and producing reference dose ranges for typical outdoor occupational and leisure activities.

Epidemiology and public health research relating to solar ultraviolet (UV) exposure usually relies on dosimetry to measure UV doses received by individuals. However, measurement errors affect each dosimetry measurement by unknown amounts, complicating the analysis of such measurements and their relationship to the underlying population exposure and the associated health outcomes. This paper presents a new approach to estimate UV doses without the use of dosimeters. By combining new satellite-derived UV data to account for environmental factors and simulation-based exposure ratio (ER) modelling to account for individual factors, we are able to estimate doses for specific exposure periods. This is a significant step forward for alternative dosimetry techniques which have previously been limited to annual dose estimation. We compare our dose estimates with dosimeter measurements from skiers and builders in Switzerland. The dosimetry measurements are expected to be slightly below the true doses due to a variety of dosimeter-related measurement errors, mostly explaining why our estimates are greater than or equal to the corresponding dosimetry measurements. Our approach holds much promise as a low-cost way to either complement or substitute traditional dosimetry. It can be applied in a research context, but is also fundamentally well-suited to be used as the basis for a dose-estimating mobile app that does not require an external device.