"Would a man smell a rose then throw it away?" Jordanian men's perspectives on women's breast cancer and breast health

Background: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy afflicting women, and the most common cancer overall in Jordan. A woman's decision to go for screening is influenced by her social support network. This study aims to explore Jordanian men's individual and contextual perspectives on women's breast cancer and their own role in the breast health of the females within their families. Methods: An explorative qualitative design was used to purposively recruit 24 married men aged 27 to 65 years (median 43 years) from four governorates in Jordan. Data in the form of interviews transcriptions was subjected to qualitative content analysis. Results: Three themes were identified: a) Supporting one's wife; b) Marital needs and obligations; c) Constrained by a culture of destiny and shame. The first theme was built on men's feelings of responsibility for the family's health and well-being, their experiences of encouraging their wives to seek health care and their providing counselling and instrumental support. The second theme emerged from men's views about other men's rejection of a wife inflicted by breast cancer, their own perceptions of diminished femininity due to mastectomy and their own concerns about protecting the family from the hereditary risk of breast cancer. The third theme was seen in men's perception of breast cancer as an inevitable act of God that is far away from one's own family, in associating breast cancer with improper behaviour and in their readiness to face the culture of Eib (shame). Conclusions: Jordanian men perceive themselves as having a vital role in supporting, guiding and encouraging their wives to follow breast cancer early detection recommendations. Breast health awareness campaigns could involve husbands to capitalize on family support

Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

Background Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC). Findings In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683–0·717]). Interpretation In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required. Funding British Journal of Surgery Society