Reactive or Proactive? Age Differences in the Use of Affective Regulation Strategies

International audienceWe examined age-related differences in the reactive and proactive use of affect regulation strategies. We collected data from 209 participants 13– 80 years of age, using an experience sampling method. The most interesting finding was that, as hypothesized, compared with those under 20, adults 20 and over used the 2 strategies we focused on (i.e., problem solving and positive reappraisal) more intensely and in a reactive manner. By contrast, from the age of about 55 upward, adults were characterized by a more intensely proactive use of these strategies. Results are discussed in the light of age differences in motivation

Validation psychométrique croisée de la version 3 de SATIN dans deux échantillons.

Ce document complète le travail de validation du questionnaire SATIN dans sa version 3. Il s’agit d’un questionnaire permettant d’agir sur les risques psychosociaux sur lequel l’INRS et l’Université Lorraine travaillent depuis 2006. De multiples démarches de validation et tests en entreprise ont été réalisés, ainsi qu’un bilan auprès des utilisateurs qui a été mené par un cabinet d’audit indépendant afin d’éviter un conflit d’intérêt avec les concepteurs. Le document porte sur la validation de la version 3, version qui capitalise les acquis des phases de validation antérieures

Clinicians' use of breast cancer risk assessment tools according to their perceived importance of breast cancer risk factors: an international survey.

The BOADICEA breast cancer (BC) risk assessment model and its associated Web Application v3 (BWA) tool are being extended to incorporate additional genetic and non-genetic BC risk factors. From an online survey through the BOADICEA website and UK, Dutch, French and Swedish national genetic societies, we explored the relationships between the usage frequencies of the BWA and six other common BC risk assessment tools and respondents' perceived importance of BC risk factors. Respondents (N = 443) varied in age, country and clinical seniority but comprised mainly genetics health professionals (82%) and BWA users (93%). Oncology professionals perceived reproductive, hormonal (exogenous) and lifestyle BC risk factors as more important in BC risk assessment compared to genetics professionals (p values < 0.05 to 0.0001). BWA was used more frequently by respondents who gave high weight to breast tumour pathology and low weight to personal BC history as BC risk factors. BWA use was positively related to the weight given to hormonal BC risk factors. The importance attributed to lifestyle and BMI BC risk factors was not associated with the use of BWA or any of the other tools. Next version of the BWA encompassing additional BC risk factors will facilitate more comprehensive BC risk assessment in genetics and oncology practice

Corrections to: Use of the BOADICEA Web Application in clinical practice: appraisals by clinicians from various countries.

The article "Use of the BOADICEA Web Application in clinical practice: appraisals by clinicians from various countries" written by Anne Brédart · Jean‑Luc Kop · Antonis C. Antoniou · Alex P. Cunningham · Antoine De Pauw ·Marc Tischkowitz · Hans Ehrencrona · Sylvie Dolbeault · Léonore Robieux · Kerstin Rhiem ·Douglas F. Easton · Peter Devilee · Dominique Stoppa‑Lyonnet· Rita Schmutlzer, was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on 16th June 2017 without open access