The Personalized Acne Treatment Tool - Recommendations to facilitate a patient-centered approach to acne management from the Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts

BACKGROUND: Acne, a commonly treated skin disease, requires patient-centered management due to its varying presentations, chronicity, and impact on health-related quality of life. Despite this, evidence-based clinical guidelines focus primarily on clinical severity of facial acne, omitting important patient- and disease-related factors, including ongoing management. OBJECTIVES: To generate recommendations to support patient-centered acne management, which incorporate priority and prognostic factors beyond conventional clinical severity, traditionally defined by grading the appearance and extent of visible lesions. METHODS: The Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts consisted of 17 dermatologists who used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on statements regarding patient- and treatment-related factors pertaining to patient-centered acne management. Consensus was defined as ≥75% voting agree or strongly agree. RESULTS: Recommendations based on factors such as acne sequelae, location of acne, high burden of disease, and individual patient features were generated and incorporated into the Personalized Acne Treatment Tool. LIMITATIONS: Recommendations are based on expert opinion, which may differ from patients\u27 perspectives. Regional variations in healthcare systems may not be represented. CONCLUSIONS: The Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts panel provided practical recommendations to facilitate individualized management of acne, based on patient features, which can be implemented to improve treatment outcomes, adherence, and patient satisfaction

Noncomparabilities & Non Standard Logics

Many normative theories set forth in the welfare economics, distributive justice and cognate literatures posit noncomparabilities or incommensurabilities between magnitudes of various kinds. In some cases these gaps are predicated on metaphysical claims, in others upon epistemic claims, and in still others upon political-moral claims. I show that in all such cases they are best given formal expression in nonstandard logics that reject bivalence, excluded middle, or both. I do so by reference to an illustrative case study: a contradiction known to beset John Rawls\u27s selection and characterization of primary goods as the proper distribuendum in any distributively just society. The contradiction is avoided only by reformulating Rawls\u27s claims in a nonstandard form, which form happens also to cohere quite attractively with Rawls\u27s intuitive argumentation on behalf of his claims

A journalism feature : the art of investment

Art in Singapore has seen much progress over the years. Galleries, art fairs and auction houses have increased in numbers, but when is it too much? This feature package explores the reasons behind the growing art scene in Singapore - art business and art investment.Bachelor of Communication Studie

Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy in primary care

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy influences decision making, health outcomes, and resource use. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 33 general practices in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 112 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy. INTERVENTION: Patients' decision aid consisting of an interactive multimedia programme with booklet and printed summary. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' and general practitioners' perceptions of who made the decision, decisional conflict scores, treatment choice and prostatectomy rate, American Urological Association symptom scale, costs, anxiety, utility, and general health status. RESULTS: Both patients and general practitioners found the decision aid acceptable. A higher proportion of patients (32% v 4%; mean difference 28%, 95% confidence interval 14% to 41%) and their general practitioners (46% v 25%; 21%, 3% to 40%) perceived that treatment decisions had been made mainly or only by patients in the intervention group compared with the control group. Patients in the intervention group had significantly lower decisional conflict scores than those in the control group at three months (2.3 v 2.6; −0.3, −0.5 to −0.1, P<0.01) and this was maintained at nine months. No differences were found between the groups for anxiety, general health status, prostatic symptoms, utility, or costs (excluding costs associated with the video disc equipment). CONCLUSIONS: The decision aid reduced decisional conflict in men with benign prostatic hypertrophy, and the patients played a more active part in decision making. Such programmes could be delivered cheaply by the internet, and there are good arguments for coordinated investment in them, particularly for conditions in which patient utilities are important