Knowledge of the risks associated with skin bleaching among Togolese users

We examined the extent of Togolese users' knowledge of the health risks associated with the regular use of bleaching agents. A massive underestimation of some of the main risks was discovered. The more frequent the use of bleaching agents, the higher the underestimation.     

Breaking Bad News to Togolese Patients

The aim of this study was to map Togolese people’s positions regarding the breaking of bad news to elderly patients. Two hundred eleven participants who had in the past received bad medical news were presented with 72 vignettes depicting communication of bad news to elderly female patients and asked to indicate the acceptability of the physician’s conduct in each case. The vignettes were all combinations of five factors: (a) the severity of the disease, (b) the patient’s wishes about disclosure, (c) the level of social support during hospitalization, (d) the patient’s psychological robustness, and (e) the physician’s decision about how to communicate the bad news. Five qualitatively different positions were found. Two percent of the participants preferred that the physician always tell the full truth to both the patient and her relatives, 8% preferred that the truth be told depending on the physician’s perception of the situation, 15% preferred that the physician tell the truth but understood that in some cases nondisclosure to the patient was not inappropriate, 33% preferred that the physician tell the full truth to the relatives but not as much information to the patient, and 42% preferred that the physician tell the full truth to the relatives only. These findings present a challenge to European physicians taking care of African patients living in Europe or working in African hospitals, and to African physicians trained in Europe and now working in their home countries. If these physicians respect the imperative of always telling the truth directly to their patients, their behavior may trigger anger and considerable misunderstanding among African patients and their families.     

French People’s Views on the Allocation of Organs for Transplantation

BackgroundFrench laypeople’s views on the allocation of organs for transplantation were examined.MethodsA total of 199 adults make judgments of priority for a liver transplant in 48 realistic scenarios composed of all combinations of 4 factors: 1. probability of success, 2. life expectancy without transplant, 3. level of responsibility for liver failure (eg, substance abuse in the past), and 4. social situation (eg, young mother with 2 young children). In all scenarios, the patients were in need of liver transplant. The ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and analyses of variance.ResultsSix qualitatively different positions were found that were termed Probability of Success and Life Expectancy (6%), Family Responsibilities (8%), Family Responsibilities and Risky Behavior (28%), Risky Behavior and Family Responsibilities (22%), Risky Behavior (11%), and Always a Priority (25%). Regular church attendees expressed more often the Risky Behavior and Family Responsibilities position and less often the Always a Priority position than atheists. Female participants expressed more often the Risky Behavior position than male participants.ConclusionsThe French laypeople in our sample think that when assessing priority for transplant, criteria additional to medical urgency or the estimated utility in terms of expected life span after transplant should be taken into account. These criteria are the patient’s lack of responsibility for the liver failure (ie, not causing it by drinking or using drugs) and the extent of the patient’s social responsibilities (with active employment and dependents to care for).     

Romanian Laypeople’s and Health Professionals’ Views Regarding Living Organ Donation

BackgroundRomanian laypeople’s and health professionals’ views on living organ donation were examined.MethodsFrom July 2015 to May 2016, 263 adults (among them 31 physicians and 20 nurses) judged the acceptability of living organ donation in 42 realistic scenarios composed of varying levels of 6 factors: 1. type of organ, 2. whether it could have been obtained from a cadaver, 3. donor-recipient relationship, 4. donor’s level of autonomy, 5. financial compensation, and 6. patients’ level of responsibility for their illness. In all scenarios, the patients were in need of either a kidney or liver transplantation.ResultsThe ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and analyses of variance. Seven qualitatively different positions were found that were termed never acceptable (12%), free market (44%), compensation (12%), altruism (6%), always acceptable (16%), responsibility (4%), and undetermined (6%). Physicians were more frequently in the free market or in the compensation clusters (81%) than laypeople (51%).ConclusionOnly a few participants held the altruism model, even though this model has been promoted as the normative model by the World Health Organization and by most national legislations, including the legislation in Romania. Instead, the free market position and its variant—the compensation position—can be considered the majority positions (66%) in Romania.     

French People’s Views Regarding Xenotransplantation

BackgroundFrench laypeople’s views on xenotransplantation were examined.MethodsA convenience sample of 224 adults (among them, 37 nurses) judged of the acceptability of xenotransplantation in 50 realistic scenarios composed of various combinations of 4 factors: 1. the type of graft (eg, pig cardiac valve), 2. the level of urgency (eg, critical condition with very high risk of death in the short term), 3. the patient’s or the family’s level of consent (eg, the members of the family are divided on the issue), and 4. whether the transplantation was temporary or definitive. The ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and analyses of variance.ResultsSeven qualitatively different positions were found that were termed Never acceptable (12%), Urgency (4%), Family consent (33%), Religious concerns (15%), Family consent and urgency (10%), Depends on all circumstances (4%), and Always acceptable (11%). Vegans and vegetarians expressed the Never acceptable position more often than nonvegetarians. Health professionals expressed the Family consent position more often than the public. Regular church attendees expressed the Religious concerns position more often than atheists did.ConclusionsFew participants, mostly vegetarians, were opposed to xenotransplantation on principle. About one-third expressed positive views regarding xenotransplantation, either irrespective of circumstances or at least in those cases in which the patient’s death is imminent and the family is not opposed for religious reasons. About one-half expressed positive views but deferred to the wishes of the family. The type of xenograft proposed had practically no effect on participants’ views.