3.8 Article

Prevalence, incidence and predictive factors for hand eczema in young adults - a follow-up study

期刊

BMC DERMATOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-5945-13-14

关键词

Hand eczema; Childhood eczema; Prevalence; Incidence; Cohort; Gender; Skin care; Hand-wash

资金

  1. Swedish Asthma and Allergy Research Foundation
  2. Finsen-Welander Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hand eczema is common in the general population and affects women twice as often as men. It is also the most frequent occupational skin disease. The economic consequences are considerable for society and for the affected individuals Methods: To investigate the prevalence and incidence of hand eczema and to evaluate risk factors for development of hand eczema in young adults. Subjects and methods; This is a prospective follow-up study of 2,403 young adults, 16 - 19 years old in 1995 and aged 29 - 32 years, 13 years later, in 2008. They completed a postal questionnaire that included questions regarding one-year prevalence of hand eczema, childhood eczema, asthma, rhino-conjunctivitis and factors considered to affect hand eczema such as hand-washing, washing and cleaning, cooking, taking care of small children and usage of moisturisers. These factors were evaluated with the multinominal logistic regression analysis Results: The one-year prevalence of hand eczema was 15.8% (females 20.3% and males 10.0%, p < 0.001). The incidence was 11.6 cases per 1000 person-years (females 14.3 and males 5.2, p < 0.001). Childhood eczema was the most important risk factor for hand eczema. The odds ratios were 13.17 when having hand eczema 1995 and 2008 compared to 5.17 in 2008 (p < 0.001). A high frequency of hand washing was important in predicting hand eczema only when having 1-year prevalence 2008, OR 1.02 (p = 0.038) Conclusions: After 13 years an increased 1-year prevalence of hand eczema was found. The significant risk factors for hand eczema changed over time from endogenous to exogenous factors

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据