Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 May 12;18(5):e0285791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285791

Illness perceptions of occupational hand eczema in German patients based on the common-sense model of self-regulation: A qualitative study

Anna-Sophie Buse 1,2,*,#, Annika Wilke 1,2, Swen Malte John 1,2, Andreas Hansen 1,2,#
Editor: Aiggan Tamene3
PMCID: PMC10180686  PMID: 37172064

Abstract

Background

Occupational skin diseases (OSD) in the form of hand eczema (HE) are a common work-related disease. Illness perceptions as presented in Leventhal’s Common-Sense Model (CSM) are important for patients’ self-management of diseases. Understanding these illness perceptions is essential for patient communicating. No quantitative or qualitative studies which investigated subjective illness perceptions in patients with occupational HE utilized the CSM as theoretical framework. The Objective of this study is to investigate illness perceptions of patients with occupational hand eczema (HE) using the CSM.

Methods

We applied an exploratory qualitative approach and conducted purposive sampling. Thirty-six patients with occupational HE were interviewed using an interview guide based on the dimensions of the CSM, including coherence and emotional representation. All participants participated in a three-week inpatient program at a clinic specialized on occupational dermatology. One interview had to be excluded before analysis, since one participant’s diagnosis was retrospectively changed from ICD to tinea and hence did not match the inclusion criteria. Thirty-five interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed. Data was analyzed deductively and inductively using qualitative text analysis. MAXQDA 2018 (Verbi, Berlin, Germany), a software for qualitative data analysis, was applied for coding and summarizing of results. All dimensions of the CSM were explored for occupational HE.

Results

Several sub-categories could be identified. Participants named a variety of causes in different areas (e. g. external irritants and other hazardous factors, psycho-social factors, allergies, having a ‘bad immune system’ or lifestyle). The great impact of the disease on the participants’ life is shown by the wide range of consequences reported, affecting all areas of life (i. e. psychological, physical, occupational, private). Considering coherence, an ambivalence between comprehensibility and non-comprehensibility of the disease is apparent.

Discussion

The complexity of illness perceptions presented in this paper is relevant for those involved in HE patient education and counseling, e. g, health educators, dermatologists, and, occupational physicians. Future research might further investigate specific aspects of illness perceptions in patients with occupational HE, especially considering the complexity of coherence and overlapping dimensions (i. e. emotional representation and psychological consequences).

Introduction

Occupational skin diseases (OSD), especially hand eczema (HE), are one of the most common work-related diseases in Europe [1] and play an important role worldwide, especially in industrialized countries [28]. For instance, hairdressers, healthcare workers and metal workers are at particularly high risk of developing occupational HE due to skin exposure to irritants and allergens [916]. Most occupational HE occur as contact dermatitis (CD) [17], predominantly as irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), caused by skin exposure to irritants (e. g., cleaning agents, detergents) [18, 19], and/or allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) [20, 21], resulting from skin contact to an allergen the individual patient is sensitized to (e. g., hair dyes, fragrances, rubber accelerators) [22, 23]. Depending on one’s genetic disposition, atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are further risk factors for developing occupational dermatoses and, in case of AD, often occur in combination with ICD [17]. Thus, diagnoses are frequently combined in a single patient (e. g., AD and ICD) [24]. The symptoms of ICD, ACD and AD are similar (e. g., itchiness, vesicles, redness). In regard to treating ICD or ACD, it is important to eliminate irritants and/or allergens causing the condition to prevent the disease from becoming chronic [18]. Besides its socio-economic impacts, both on a patient’s life and society [21, 25], occupational HE are associated with a high burden of disease and a reduced quality of life [2630].

The individual behavior (e. g., use of skin protection products) of patients with occupational HE influences the course of the disease and the ability to work [31]. Training and counseling these patients is vital to initiate and support behavior change processes [32]. To provide tailored patient education and counseling interventions, addressing illness perceptions in training and counseling is important [33, 34]. However, these illness perceptions need to be identified and understood in depth, considering all relevant facets. Until now, only few quantitative or qualitative studies have investigated perceptions of patients with eczematous skin diseases [3543]. Only two studies specifically focused on OSDs [35, 37] and four have used a qualitative approach [3537, 42]. None of these studies utilized a specific theoretical framework to investigate illness perceptions. Our paper uses the widely used common sense model as theoretical framework (see below) to investigate illness perceptions. Furthermore, the qualitative approach of this paper allows to understand and get a thorough insight into the patients’ perspectives [44, 45]. This also includes exploring the patients’ wording in regard to their illness perceptions.

Theoretical framework

Leventhal’s CSM framework is commonly used to understand and describe the processes involved in initiating and maintaining behaviors to manage illness threats [46]. According to this model, patients form their own mental representation of their illness which comprise individual illness perceptions. Patients utilize these illness perceptions to respond to and manage an existing or potential future health threat. Illness perceptions derive from the patients’ personal experiences (e. g., prior illnesses), the interaction with their socio-cultural environment (e. g., doctors or colleagues) as well as their existing knowledge and beliefs about the disease [34]. According to Leventhal, illness perceptions are characterized by five dimensions: identity, timeline, consequences, cause and control. Identity refers to the name or label of a disease (e. g., eczema, rash) as well as the perceived symptoms [46]. Timeline describes the duration and course (e. g., constant aggravation, cyclical) of the illness. Consequences comprise individual experiences and anticipated beliefs about the effects (e. g., physical or social) of the illness on the patient’s life. Cause reflects the patient’s ideas on the etiology/triggering factors of the disease. Control or controllability encompasses both medical and personal treatment measures and their effectiveness.

In qualitative research, several studies have used the CSM as theoretical framework to investigate illness perceptions for different diseases (e. g., [4750]). In quantitative studies, the Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ) [51] and its revised version (IPQ-R) [52] are widely used instruments for assessing illness representations. Both questionnaires are based on the dimensions of the CSM. However, the IPQ-R added further dimensions, i. e., coherence and emotional representation [52]: The CSM states that patients develop emotional representations during the process of self-regulation [34]. Emotional representation is considered a determining factor of the evaluation of health and illness [46, 53]. Coherence is understood as the patients’ perceived ability to understand their illness. To the best of our knowledge, only two quantitative studies on illness perceptions of patients with hand eczema assess coherence as a dimension of illness perceptions of eczematous skin diseases so far [34, 35].

Objective

The objective of this study is to utilize the dimensions of the CSM–including coherence and emotional representation–to qualitatively explore illness perceptions of occupational hand eczema.

Methods

This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Osnabrück University (no. 13/2020). The report follows the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) [54]. A completed SRQR checklist is attached in S1 Appendix.

Research design

We conducted an exploratory qualitative study in a healthcare center specialized on occupational dermatology in Osnabrück, Germany, to explore the complex illness perceptions on occupational HE considering the CSM domains identity, timeline, cause, control, consequences, coherence and emotional representation. This qualitative approach enables assessing detailed information about how individual patients cope and understand the complex disease pattern of occupational HE.

Recruitment and sample

One to three patients out of approximately eight patients which are weekly admitted to a three-week inpatient tertiary prevention of HE program [31], were invited by two researchers (AB and AH) to take part in the study at the end of a routine patient education seminar which takes place at the beginning of the second week of the inpatient stay. Potential participants were verbally informed about the study and the overall interviewing process. Participation was voluntary. Participants were informed that non-participation and withdrawing consent would not result in any disadvantages. Afterwards, written information on the study and consent forms were handed out to participants who verbally declared interest in taking part in the study. After a sufficient amount of time (approx. two to three days), researchers (AB and AH) obtained the participant’s written consent. If necessary, participants could ask questions about the consent form at any time. Afterwards, interviewer (AB or AH) and participant agreed on a meeting for conducting the interview.

The purposive sampling aimed at including a typical composition of the clinic’s inpatients (see introduction). Inclusion criteria were written consent, sufficient German oral language skills to participate in an interview and being over 18 years of age (German legal age). Patients aged 22 to 63 with occupational HE were recruited based on a sampling plan which considered a balance between age (three age groups: 18–35, 36–50 and over 50), gender (18 men and 18 women), occupation and form of HE. Especially metal workers and health professionals were included (see introduction). However, also salesmen and -women were recruited since these occupations are also common amongst the group of patients of part of the program mentioned above. The participants mostly suffered from ICD and/or ACD, partly combined with AD or psoriasis. The diagnosis was made by experienced dermatologists and reported in written form. Patients diagnosed with tinea, no eczematous skin disease on their hands or exclusively non-occupational skin diseases were excluded from the study.

Interview guide

The interview guide (see S2 Appendix) comprises of 7 open-ended questions and is based on the dimensions of the CSM including coherence and emotional representations. The optional sub-questions of the interview guide were used to generate more detailed answers if necessary. Interviews began with an open-ended question related to interviewee’s general experiences with their skin to give participants space to tell their stories [55].

Data collection

Thirty-six interviews were conducted between May and October 2021 in a separate room of the clinic. Interviews lasted from 6 minutes 12 seconds to 41 minutes 37 seconds. The average interview length was approx. 16 minutes. Each interview was conducted by one of the researchers (AB or AH). In most weeks during the period of data collection, one to three interviews were completed. In some weeks, no patient was eligible for the study or interested in participation. Both researchers (AB and AH) are experienced in qualitative research and work as health educators at the healthcare center. Using qualitative interviewing techniques, participants were encouraged to describe their own experiences in detail. Due to SARS-CoV-2-related and clinic-internal hygiene guidelines, both interviewee and interviewer wore a face mask and maintained physical distance during the interview process. One interview was excluded afterwards since the participant’s diagnosis was retrospectively changed from ICD to tinea and hence did not match the inclusion criteria.

Data analysis

All interviews were audio recorded with a digital recording device (Olympus DM-770, Olympus, Hamburg, Germany) and transcribed by a professional transcription service (abtipper.de, Digitalmeister GmbH, Hannover, Germany). As explained above, thirty-five transcripts were considered for further analysis. These transcripts were checked and verified by two researchers (AB and AH). Both researchers analyzed the data using qualitative text analysis [56]. MAXQDA 2018 (Verbi, Berlin, Germany) was used for coding and summarizing results. At first, seven deductive main categories based on the illness perception dimensions of the CSM were used for ‘a priori’ categorization of participants’ responses. Afterwards, an inductive approach was used to build sub-categories to specify the different facets of the dimensions reflecting the complexity of occupational HE. To ensure intercoder agreement [56] four interviews were coded independently by both researchers (AB and AH) to identify and eliminate possible coding discrepancies. This process was performed during the deductive as well as the inductive analysis of data. Afterwards, coding of all other interviews was done by the two researchers separately. During and after analysis, the category system (see S3 Appendix) as well as potential ambiguities in the coding process were discussed in regular coding meetings between AB and AH as well as in a qualitative research group to eliminate ambiguities. Summarizing and paraphrasing of results were done by one researcher (AB). The example quotes presented in this paper were translated into English after analysis (AB). All example quotes used in this paper and the original German version of these quotes are also listed in S4 Appendix.

Results

Thirty-five transcripts were considered for further analysis. The following presentation of the results is based on the category system (see S3 Appendix) used for coding. Due to the quantity of results, only the most striking categories of the category system are presented in this paper.

Perception of occupational hand eczema

The results regarding the participants’ perceptions of occupational hand eczema are based on the five dimensions of the CSM plus coherence and emotional representations. These seven dimensions are outlined in the following:

  1. Perceived causes

  2. Perception of the timeline

  3. Label of the symptoms and illness

  4. Perception of controllability

  5. Perception of consequences

  6. Perceived coherence

  7. Emotional representation

Perceived causes

Many interviewees reported external irritants and other hazardous influences as triggering factors of hand eczema which are listed in Table 1. Due to the great number of external irritants, main terms (e. g., ‘hand washing’) were generated to group the factors mentioned. In addition to the irritants and other hazardous factors shown in Table 1, interviewees also named psycho-social factors such as stress (e. g., due to changed working conditions or time pressure), having troubling thoughts, social problems and others (e. g., feeling ‘unsettled’, private problems, anxiety, no time for self-care). Allergies, either being allergic to a specific substance (e. g., creams, gloves or working substances) or a rather abstract concept of ‘a general tendency to allergies’, as well as genetic factors (e. g., atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, sensitive skin in comparison to ‘normal’ skin, general genetic predisposition) were stated, too.

Table 1. External irritants and other hazardous factors as perceived causes for occupational HE.
Irritants Sample quotes
Hand washing:
• frequency
• doing it wrong
• using wrong products
"But then washing isn’t good for me either, because of the skin drying out and the pH and everything." (B19)
Gloves:
• not using protective gloves
• long wearing times
• double gloving
• wet hands in gloves
• certain glove materials
"The amount of glove wearing, I think, has become more than it used to be. Yeah, you just put on more. There’s no way to avoid it. Sometimes even two pairs on top of each other. So, that’s a greater burden for the skin, without question, because the intervals between wearing gloves are also getting shorter and shorter." (B13)
Working substances and materials:
• water
• disinfectants
• cleaners
• groceries
• metal or wood
• adhesives
"Oil, grease, cooling lubricant, dielectric, all combined on the skin. And then another cleaner, blowing something off somewhere and then rubbing the cleaner over your hand, rag over it, and so on. Oh, that burns. Well, go wash your hands." (B4)
Working environment:
• dirty objects (e. g., tools)
• dust
• air pressure or bad air quality
"Of course, you also have working activities where you touch something, like I said, if you’re working in a workshop, there’s dirt." (B16)
Mechanic work "The problem was mainly the skin on the joints, that it was torn because of the mechanical problems I still have at work, that I have to do a lot of lifting or twisting or gripping.” (B18)
Ointment/creams:
• wrong product
• too many products
• cortisone
"After all, you’re equipped with thousands of creams. And I don’t think that’s the right thing for the skin either." (B11)
Weather or temperature:
• frost
• wetness
• summer (sweaty hands) vs. winter (dry hands)
"The cold, I guess. Winter, cold, definitely. And [. . .] in the summer, the sun. Also on vacation, it’s obvious, the skin also gets more sun." (B28)
Sweat "I think sweating is the main point for me. Increased through all measures now, through Corona, of course. Because, not only sweating on the hands, but on the whole body." (B13)
Accumulation of risk factors:
• frequent contact to irritants
• sometimes several risk factors at once
"Yeah, it’s this agglomeration of a lot of things, you know? Wearing gloves, disinfection of hands, also constantly- When I’m wearing gloves, I sweat immediately. And disinfections. My hands are constantly wet. Again, and again, more and more on top.” (B20)
‘Suspicious substances’ • „As if the truck has been in some construction site where there is something quite strange on the ground where nobody knows what it is which is not traceable. [. . .] It’s not just the feeling of sand in the eyes, but something else." (B1)
Private sector:
• domestic work
• arranging furniture
• chlorinated pools
• dirt (horse riding, fishing)
• “I have a horse. I ride. I always have to make sure that I wear gloves so that the dirt doesn’t get on my hands." (B30)
Others:
• new/unknown working material
• itching
"Basically, that was this job-, this change to a, to a new job with a new employer with, with completely new components, new materials that I had in my hand all of a sudden." (B21)

Other perceived causes were lifestyle (especially diet or consuming certain groceries, e. g., ‘exotic fruits’), a bad or ‘aged’ immune system, but also aspects considering behavior (e. g., being reckless against one’s better judgement).

Perception of timeline

Participants tended to report the onset and evolution of their disease over a period of time by describing the changing of symptoms. The perceived duration of illness varies from four months up to several decades. In general, interviewees stated a cyclical or periodic course of the illness (intervals, phases, episodes, ‘like a hormone cycle’, ‘comes back again and again’, rhythm):

“And then it works out for a while. And then there is a relapse, so to speak, and the hands get worse again.” (B1)

The length of a phase varies between several days, weeks, or sometimes years. The severity of hand eczema changes from phase to phase, depending on different circumstances: Being on sick or parental leave, being on holiday, weekends, summer season, support and good atmosphere at workplace as well as performing less skin-irritating work were mentioned as circumstances under which the severity decreased. Returning to work after sick leave or being on holiday and winter season (cold and wet weather) were reported as circumstances which lead to aggravation of the eczema. Some interviewees stated that they could not specify under which circumstances the severity of their hand eczema changed. Interviewees reported that they recognized similar symptoms (e. g., vesicles) at the beginning of each phase. Some interviewees mentioned eczema would ‘come and go’ with phases of complete healing, others stated that it gets better in some phases but does not heal completely. Besides this cyclical course, a few interviewees also stated either a constant aggravation or improvement over the whole course of the illness.

Label of symptoms and illness

The participants reported a great variety of different symptoms experienced which are presented in Table 2. Due to the great number of symptoms, main terms (e. g., ‘vesicles’) were generated to group the symptoms named. Furthermore, participants used different synonyms to describe hand eczema, e. g., broken skin/hands, skin problems, the (skin) thing, (skin) disease, (skin) eczema, inflammation, skin change, contact dermatitis, rash or bad skin.

Table 2. Perceived symptoms of occupational HE.
Symptom(s) Sample quotes
vesicles:
• itchy
• small/big
• many
• filled with liquid
• dried out
• like pimples/pox
"Within one or two hours, there were small blisters that itched a lot. And then it just went pretty quickly, it wasn’t bearable, which is why I then went to see a doctor." (B1)
rhagades/cracks:
• deep
• skin rips/pops open
"Until they cracked, rhagades, bloody, the desquamation." (B3)
peeling of skin:
• hangs down in shreds
• like after a sun burn
"My hands, they actually looked like- I could peel off a piece of skin just like that every morning. It was hanging down in shreds." (B4)
calluses:
• thick
• like bark
"(. . .) and because of the cracks there were open wounds and after that there was only callus and even if you had a pen in your hand and wanted to write something, it burst open again." (B10)
deformation of nails:
• wavelike
• nails fall off
"The nails are just not the way you want them to be. They’re deformed. But they’ve been that way for a while." (B13)
fluids:
• oozing
• sticky fluids
• pus
"With pox, itching, festering, sticky fluid or- well not festering but rather sticky fluid." (B19)
general appearance:
• bad looks
• not nice
• hands are disfigured/ open
• wound
• red
• scaling
"(. . .) it was really so bad one morning so I got up, and it was fiery red, open" (B2)
pruritus, pain:
• at night
• unbearable
itch attacks
"It’s just annoying, the itching above all things." (B22)
Others:
• rough
• bloody
• raw
• swelling
• dry
• like wax
• scars
• porous
• heat or inflammation ‘inside’
• thin and sensitive skin
"always with swelling, redness, really thick" (B2).
"The surface of the skin was all nicely healed again. It was intact again. But in the depth you still saw these infection-, uh inflammations." (B3)
"So there are real lacerations, until the blood comes, so to speak." (B8)

Perception of controllability

Participants mentioned different measures adopted either by themselves or healthcare professionals (especially dermatologists) to gain control over their HE. A special focus lay on the usage of creams/ointments. Measures mentioned are categorized in Table 3. Some participants elaborated measures which could be conducted hypothetically in the future or under different (working) conditions. Some participants stated self-harming procedures as both conscious or subconscious measures for relieve, e. g., opening vesicles (with a needle), scratching, picking/nibbling, rubbing, using hot water or scratching until skin bleeds (pain was considered more bearable than itchiness). Some interviewees reported about the perceived effectiveness of certain measures: Either measures were successful (or are considered as being successful in future), moderately/less and less successful (also over a certain period of time, accompanied by a perceived loss of controllability) or not successful at all:

Table 3. Measures adopted by participants and physicians to control occupational HE.
Measure Examples
‘Medicine’ or treatments Creams/ointment/emollients:
• adjectives used: special, several, different, expensive, protective, oily, urea
• ‘mixed’ by dermatologist or pharmacist
• frequency: often, a lot, ‘like a maniac’, after work, after showering, not hesitating to use it
• apply thickly (even when skin looks alright) or varying amounts according to state of skin
• giving the skin ‘a treat’, in combination with cotton liners at night
• having creams handy in flat (i. e. in different rooms), at workplace and in backpacks/bags
• pay attention on quality, trying different drug store products
Example quote:
“(. . .) lots of creams, different strengths of cortisone, depending on the condition, how extreme it is at that point.” (B20)
Others:
• baths (e. g., black tea baths, saltwater baths, paraffin wax bath)
• light therapy (e. g., PUVA therapy)
• adjusting doses (either by physician or oneself), reducing the amount of creams used
• taking pills
• cortisone
• antibiotics
Reducing the number of skin-irritating factors • sick leave (also several weeks/months)
• delegating (also at home, e. g., wet work) or rearranging tasks (e. g., to avoid wearing single use gloves), avoiding skin-irritating tasks (both at home and at work)
• using skin protection products at work
• washing one’s hair with gloves
• ‘avoiding stuff’ in general, stop using disinfectants, less hand washing (only when necessary), avoiding substances one is reacting to, stop stroking cats, ‘only doing what you have to do’
• overall ‘adjusting’ of everyday life
Example quote:
“I talked to my wife about it like that, that I just leave out all these wet work at home.” (B24)
Gloves • ‘extra special’, many different, rubber
• when cutting vegetables at home/performing ‘certain’ tasks
• cotton liners
• receiving gloves from employer
• reducing wearing times
Example quote:
“I wear gloves, but I don’t wear them too long either, so that I don’t sweat in them and so on.” (B32)
Measures concerning physicians or insurance • (regularly) consult a physician (general practitioners, dermatologist, occupational physician, otolaryngologist physician), those who are familiar with one’s case, consult an ‘expert’ (on skin diseases)
• change physician when not satisfied
• report to the employer’s liability insurance association (Germany)
• rehabilitation
• allergy testing
• taking skin samples
• following treatment plan
• Example quote:
“I’m at the dermatologist quite often. So, every three, four weeks, I have appointments to check my skin.” (B9)
Others • cooling/distracting oneself (especially when itchy)/ trying not to itch
• less stress, more time for skin
• protection plan/concept for skin protection at work
• plasters on rhagades
• protective equipment
• seminars on skin protection
• omit certain groceries/products (e. g., shampoos, exotic fruits, nuts)
• skin-friendly cleaning product
• avoid substances to find a cause
• pay more attention to the skin

“They [authors note: doctors] were quite strict. I wasn’t used to that, but it was probably the right way to go. That helped a lot. It had a quick effect.” (B13)

“Then you pay much more attention to it, I also wear the gloves. I have all that, but still because of all these gloves and super great paying attention, it still happens, all the time.” (B6)

Another aspect mentioned by some participants is that some are able to assess the state of their HE:

“And I actually thought that the hands looked quite good, they were a little red, a little overheated, but I’m used to something worse.” (B20)

Perception of consequences

Participants named various consequences resulting from their illness. Foremost, interviewees focused on psychological, occupational, physical and private consequences. These are listed in Table 4. Few participants also mentioned financial consequences (e. g., expensive products, not being able to pay off mortgage in case of job change, sick benefits much lower than normal wage) or no consequences at all. Many participants expressed their personal way of dealing with the disease which could be understood as a personal ’overall’ consequence:

Table 4. Perceived psychological, physical, occupational and private consequences of occupational HE.
Sub-Domain Examples
Psychological • thinking/worrying about it a lot/everything is about the hands, stress
• pressure at work
• ‘pulls you down’, feeling bad, crying, depressive mood ‘just because of the hands’, not content/discontent, sad
• burden, limitations in everyday life, not able to carry out everyday activities
• mockery, feelings of shame (e. g., in intimate interactions), feeling other’s glances, not masculine
• feeling excluded, reserved, not going out when skin is itchy
• bad life quality, incisions in well-being, unpleasant, sleep deprived
• ‘behaving differently than usual’, nervous, oblivious, inattentive, unbalanced
• feeling handicapped, helpless
• annoyed by other people’s comments (e. g., ‘Is it scabies?’) and protective measures
• loss of self-confidence
• not in the mood to do something nice/to enjoy, nothing is motivating
• uncertainty, frustration, not knowing where it comes from, despair, disappointment
Example quote:
“And when I go shopping, for example, I also started wearing cotton gloves. But I’ve also had to listen to people, also acquaintances, saying: ‘Oh, Michael Jackson.’ Stupid comments. And yeah, and then, of course, there’s also a bit of shame.” (B7)
Physical • hands do not do what they are supposed to
• moving differently
• open skin, changed skin milieu, skin is more sensitive than it used to be, wounds take longer to heal, scars
• itchiness, pain (one cannot use hands normally), burning
• suffering from side effects of medicine/pills (are “like a bomb”, one needs to relax after taking a tablet)
• no bending of fingers/making a fist, skin is tense
• no fingerprints
• stiff, like leather
• skin gets stuck (e. g., to fabrics)
• pressure sensitivity
• not being able to touch anything, to perceive/feel anything with fingers
Example quote:
“But if I say, ‘I’ll use hand sanitizer.’ you’ll hear me screaming in pain all the way down the street.” (B19)
Occupational • feeling bad about colleagues as they have to overtake tasks
• quitting apprenticeship/other jobs in the past because of disease
• worried about losing job/being replaced, questions about future career path, thinking about changing jobs (e. g., working in an office), ‘getting through the last years of work before retiring’
• consulting doctor’s during working time and sick leave (probably also in the future): no durable solution, feeling unreliable
• not being able to conduct certain tasks or to conduct them differently, esp. when wet/dirty/fine motor activities/tools fall down, slower work pace, less (direct) contact to patients/customers
• working with protective gloves, using creams
• moral conflict: using disinfectants means pain, not using it is against hygiene rules, using plasters, even though forbidden, also: broken skin cannot be disinfected
• questioning if current job is still suitable in context of skin disease
• reorganize working procedures/job rotation to avoid skin irritating tasks
• glances and comments of colleagues/patients/customers, tips on skin protection are not helpful
• socially excluded from activities (e. g., at breakfast table at workplace)
Example quote:
“When the hands are really open, you also get the feeling at some point that you are unreliable, because you just have to call in sick when it’s really bad. (. . .) Then I’m just always afraid that people will think that maybe I’m not reliable or that it could be used against me.” (B2)
“Then the others started too, the work colleagues. And they were sitting in a breakfast room and it wasn’t nice. They said, ‘Sit somewhere else. This doesn’t look nice.’ I say, ‘But I can’t do anything about it. It’s just the way it is.’ Then they said, ‘Then put something on.’ And then I started wearing gloves in the breakfast room.” (B34)
Private • hiding hands from kids, being distant to partner and family (preferring to touch with cotton liners instead of rough/bloody hands)
• not being able to do leisure sports, making a sandwich, hold a glass of water properly, no social events to protect hands (becoming an outsider), not touching animals/pets, one has to choose between activities
• friends’ glances and comments, family and friends recognize that you / your skin is not alright
• everyday tasks are challenging (e. g., cutting vegetables)
• always having creams and gloves handy
• using gloves (e. g., when washing hair, walking the dog)
• asking friends, family, partner for help even if it ‘just’ a skin disease (e. g., gardening, washing dishes), not able to help around the house
• talk to friends/family to find solutions
• not being able to do something rashly, everything has to be thought through but not always in the mood to conduct protective measures
• not wearing what you like (clothes, jewelry)
• blood on bedclothes
Example quote:
“I’ve just become a grandmother. It’s just a bit strange when you’re like, ‘Do I touch this child now or not?’ And when it comes to my partner, I sometimes have the feeling- Do I stroke my husband or will he say, ‘Take your rough hands off me?’” (B5)

“Yeah, you, it’s just, you learn to live with it, eventually. Yeah, you learn to live with it.” (B25)

Some interviewees said that they would go to work if one is ‘able to get up’ or do leisure activities even if it is painful. Some interviewees concluded that one ‘cannot change it’ and–hence–has to accept, adapt to, and learn to live with the disease to continue normal everyday life and cope with it (also with protective measures). One should be optimistic and stay content instead of worrying about it too much. Furthermore, one must learn to take care of and speak for oneself. However, reducing social contacts, hiding hands, withdrawing from public life and not talking to others about it (especially superiors at work) were also mentioned as strategies. Some described the disease as burden which changed life quality for worse.

Perceived coherence

Participants stated different aspects of coherence: First, a great number or interviewees discussed the (in)comprehensibility of the emergence or course of the illness (see Table 5). It was noted that skin diseases are complex which is why it is a long process to understand them. Some talked about the overall sense of coherence, considering the presence of necessary resources (e. g., finding and avoiding a certain substance or a new drug) which would eventually ensure that the disease is cured or at least manageable. In contrast, the lack of those resources (e. g., there is no ‘miracle drug’) leads to a great concern about whether the disease would ever be manageable or turn into something ‘even worse’:

Table 5. Aspects mentioned in context of incomprehensibility and comprehensibility of occupational HE.
Dimension Examples
Incomprehensibility • wondering about the cause of the illness, nothing ‘special’ about everyday work which could cause/suddenly led to the emergence/worsening of a skin disease
• wondering why there were no problems in the past (e. g., usage of skin irritating substances in the past but not anymore) or trying to find reasons for why it is occurring now (e. g., changes in the body)
• not accepting the diagnosis
• wondering if it is an occupational or genetic cause/why it is so severe/got worse
• not being able to explain coherencies (‘I am not a scientist/doctor’)
• wondering why it is located on hands and nowhere else
• need for a definition of what is going on (e. g., positive patch test result)
• understanding of disease processes in the skin but not why they happen
• never thought about whether one understands the disease or not
• in the past, one’s own body was considered as ‘not vulnerable’ (e. g., taking off gloves when skin is considered healthy)
• believe that someone intentionally withholds information (e. g., ingredients of tablet/cream or substances at work, no questioning of medical diagnoses)
Example quote
“Actually, yes. Because I also don’t know-, I don’t know what it is. Then I can also not understand so, wha- or why or why. Or whatever triggered it that the hands are so scaly.” (B28)
Comprehensibility • understanding the disease after a causing substance was identified
• retrospectively, everything makes sense/understanding of what went wrong in the past
• being sure that skin reacts to mental health
• understanding that accumulated irritations/different factors led to eczema
• being aware of sensitive skin/abnormal skin
• many people are allergic to certain substances, it is normal to develop allergies
• understandable that skin reacts if it is not protected properly
Example quote
“It’s quite understandable. In so far as substances are hidden everywhere in many products, especially today, where many people suffer from allergic reactions anyway. So, it’s not that I’m completely puzzled like: ‘Does the good Lord want to punish me or something?’ (Laughs.) Or something like-. I already have a good imagination of something like that.” (B12)

“Hopefully it will go away or hopefully it’s not incurable or something like that.” (B12)

Furthermore, a few participants described the emergence and course of their illness as fateful (i. e., in the sense of good/bad luck) or a process which is beyond their or other people’s control. A few participants considered it unfair that they suffer from the illness (e. g., as colleagues do not have eczema, even though these work with irritant substances, too).

Emotional representation

Participants named a variety of mainly bad emotions associated with the illness. These emotions occur depending on the respective situation (e. g., social context with strangers/own children or working context) and comprise shame, nervousness/tension, being irritably, anger, sadness, disgust, frustration and panic. Only one participant described a feeling of happiness, when recognizing an improvement of the skin.

Example quote: “But I’ve tried to hide it as well as possible from my children. At least from the little ones. Because he has already come and said ’Dad, your hand looks disgusting.’” (B15)

Discussion

The aim of this qualitative study was to explore illness perceptions of occupational HE based on the dimensions of the common-sense model, including coherence and emotional representation. For this purpose, we conducted and analyzed guided face-to-face interviews with patients taking part in a three-week-inpatient rehabilitation program at a healthcare center specialized on occupational dermatology. The shortest of the interviews lasted 6 minutes. However, it delivered valuable information on the participants’ individual illness perceptions. In this case, the interviewee was rather fact-oriented and delivered short-sentenced answers very quickly.

During analysis, several aspects became apparent which require further discussion. The great amount and variety of aspects named in some categories (i. e. external factors/irritant in ‘causes’, description of symptoms in ‘label of symptoms and illness’ as well as measures in ‘controllability’) had to be summarized under umbrella terms (see Tables 13). Even though we made sure to include all facets and formulations considered, some phenomena might not be shown in this paper.

Participants were diagnosed with different kinds of occupational HE and/or a combination of different diagnoses (e. g. ICD and AD). This might have led to varying results in some of the categories as discussed below. Furthermore, all participants of this study already attended at least two seminars on (occupational) skin diseases as part of the inpatient rehabilitation program and thus have gained some knowledge about, e. g. potential causes and protective measures. Hence, interviews with patients without any prior educational interventions might have led to different results.

‘Causes perceived’ is one of the biggest categories in our analysis. Most participants focused on external factors/irritants. Here, a great number of heterogeneous external factors was named. This might result from a wide range of substances used in different occupations which has already been discussed in a systematic review [43]. However, water (i. e. due to sweating under occlusive gloves, washing hands or working under wet conditions) was named by almost every single participant of the study. This is hardly surprising as wet work is considered as important risk factor for developing hand eczema [57]. Furthermore, some participants stated genetic factors, too, which might be due to different diagnoses (e. g., a combination of ICD and AD vs. patients which are only diagnosed with ICD). Besides, this study also shows that some patients believe in an abstract concept of ‘tending to have allergies’ which might describe atopic diseases such as AD. It is a pivotal finding of this paper, that due to combined diagnoses, patients with occupational HE identify different influential aspects of their disease. Lifestyle factors such as diet are also considered as potential causes in patients with occupational HE. This corresponds to Bathe et al. who also found nutrition as a factor mentioned by interviewees [35].

In accordance with a quantitative study [39], we found many participants describing the timeline of their occupational HE as periodical, cyclical or phasic. In addition to these findings, participants also illustrated the overall course of the disease as changing from phase to phase, either becoming better or worse. An important finding is that participants tended to ‘tell’ the course of their disease by describing changing symptoms. This might be due to the nature of the disease: In contrast to many other diseases, HE develops gradually and many symptoms are visually perceivable. Also, participants described the contexts under which they observed changes of their skin. This might also be relevant for discussing perceived causes of a disease or helpful measures. Even though participants were not asked directly, some interviewees stated that they are able to recognize slight skin changes at an early stage at the beginning of a phase. Hence, it can be assumed that some patients develop a kind of individual ‘warning system’ alerting them when their skin commences deteriorating. Such ‘warning system’ seems to be an important aspect stimulating certain coping strategies and might be comparable to Leventhal et al.’s example of perceived symptoms which indicate high blood pressure [34]. Skin changes were similar at the beginning of each phase in a single participant. However, these markers differed amongst all interviewees. Even though this aspect is assigned to perception of timeline, as it was named in the context of the beginning of ‘phases’, this kind of ‘warning system’ might also have a great impact on the perceived controllability of the disease and should be investigated in further research. Furthermore, this might be a pivotal feature of (chronic) diseases with a cyclical timeline.

Studies on both occupational and non-occupational skin diseases state that these diseases are considered as highly symptomatic by the patients [43]. This is supported by our findings. Along with the categories cause and controllability, ‘perceived symptoms’ is one of the largest categories. Furthermore, participants did not only mention a great number, but also a great variety of different symptoms. Many of these focus on the visual appearance of the skin or changes in haptoral perception of its surface, but also unpleasant, non-visual sensations such as pruritus and pain. Many of the symptoms mentioned can be ascribed to all eczematous diseases. Furthermore, this study presents a variety of synonyms used by people with occupational HE to describe their illness. Not all of them deliver the image of an illness (such as “rash” or “inflammation”) but rather a defective condition which needs to be adjusted (e. g. “bad skin” or “skin problem”).

Considering controllability, this study rather emphasizes measures adopted by patients and/or physicians than a general concept of controllability. This might result from the question asked to cover this dimension (‘What do you do when you notice your skin changing?’). Most certainly due to the nature of the disease, many participants unsurprisingly focus on the usage of different creams/ointments. However, this study also shows that self-harming procedures (e. g., opening vesicles) are sometimes considered to be a measure for relief. Some of these interviewees stated that they would not perform self-harming procedures anymore. This may be due to the interview situation itself and the fact that all participants were also patients who, in a medical context, are often expected to be compliant and perform a certain medically recommended behavior. Therefore, some respondents might have not even mentioned performing these procedures (social desirability bias). However, these procedures could be considered as a form of controllability which is achieved by covering the actual symptoms, e. g. replacing itchiness through pain. This should be taken into consideration in further studies as well as for educating and counseling patients.

In accordance with other studies [35, 36, 43], consequences perceived are primarily in the psychological, physical, private and occupational domains. Participants stated both implicitly and explicitly a perceived high burden of disease. This aspect is also confirmed in other studies [2630, 43]. In this category, respondents tended to elaborate their personal experiences in particular detail which underlines the individual significance of these consequences in everyday life (see also [42]). This becomes particularly apparent through the sample quotes, but also through the summarized statements in Table 4.

The presented consequences of occupational HE affect all categories of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) [58]. Thus, interventions as well as the respective national structures of patient care should take all of these dimensions into account, e. g., by integrating interprofessional teams into care which not only include medical personnel, but also educational, psychological, and occupational therapists.

During analysis, some physical and psychological consequences were difficult to differentiate (e. g., sleeping disorder or limitations in everyday life). Also, distinguishing psychological consequences and emotional representation proved to be difficult (i. e., emotions names might be considered as consequence, too). This has also been discussed in quantitative research using the CSM model [59]. Therefore, we decided to only code single words as sub-categories which describe a specific feeling in emotional representation, even though these might be understood as consequence as well. The category of psychological consequences on the other hand covers more complex statements on the perceived impact on the interviewee’s mental health. Further studies–both quantitative and qualitative–using the CSM should be aware of this overlap.

Participants who elaborated aspects of coherence, aimed at identifying a specific cause (especially a positive patch test result) as a–desirable–guide to understand their disease. In this context, participants also expressed their wish to be able to manage their disease by knowing about the cause(s), which apparently is also an important factor in context of controllability. Both, the wish for knowing an actual cause and a tendency to use synonyms conveying the image of defective condition to describe the disease (see above), carry a strict biomedical understanding of health and illness [60], where a disease is emerging due to a (single) specific cause which needs to be identified and eliminated. This contradicts the complex disease pattern of occupational HE and should therefore be taken care of in communication between therapists and patients. Sloot et al. already suggested that patients should be educated about the multifactorial nature of HE [42]. This may also comprise a bio-psycho-social perspective and possible limitations of diagnostic tests at an early stage of the diagnostic phase.

Interestingly, a great number of participants considered their disease as both comprehensible and incomprehensible at the same time which might result from a combination of diagnoses (e. g., AD and ICD). In general, the use of the CSM in both qualitative and quantitative studies could yield different results in terms of coherence when dealing with diseases with different complexity of etiology. In terms of understanding coherence as a ‘meta cognitive’ level of the understanding of the disease [52], it might be beneficial to conduct further qualitative studies focusing on coherence only–in occupational HE or even AD, CD, ACD, and ICD separately. Furthermore, future (quantitative) studies should focus on deep analysis of differences and similarities in illness perceptions amongst patients with occupational HE (i. e. besides the form of HE mentioned above, also considering occupation, age), e. g. through aiming at a less heterogenous sample composition.

Strengths and limitations of this study

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to use the CSM for a detailed investigation of illness perceptions in patients with occupational skin diseases. It delivers an in-depth description of the different dimensions and their complexity. Especially the dimensions timeline and coherence have not been investigated in depth before. A strength of this study is the usage of an open-ended stimulus at the beginning of the interview which encouraged interviewees to illustrate their individual experiences.

As all interviews were conducted in German language, example quotes and colloquial wording (see Tables 15) had to be translated into English language after analysis. Therefore, some of the example quotes presented might not comply with native colloquial English language.

The group investigated consists of inpatients of a healthcare center specialized on occupational dermatology in Germany. Due to these very specific arrangements, the transferability of our results to other patient groups (e. g. with milder forms of occupational HE) might be limited. Furthermore, as all interviewees were patients of this healthcare center and both interviewers work as health educators, social desirability might have biased the participants’ statements during the interviews.

Conclusion

The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the illness perceptions of patients with occupational HE. The qualitative approach allowed participants to express their experiences and perceptions in great detail. As our results show, patients use a variety of terms and expressions to convey their illness perceptions. The great amount of causes named by the participants often derive from their occupational life: Besides external irritants and other hazardous factors as well as allergies, psycho-social factors appear to be central perceived causes. Also, the impact of occupational HE on the individual’s life is highlighted by the wide range of consequences affecting all areas of life. These aspects highlight the importance of psycho-social counselling of patients with occupational HE. All in all, knowledge on illness perceptions of patients with occupational HE is crucial for communication between healthcare professionals and patients. Especially since the individual behavior and self-management of the disease are of great importance for treating the disease. In regard to applying the CSM, this study shows that this model appears to be appropriate to investigate illness perceptions of occupational HE. However, this paper highlights some challenges which may arise when working with the CSM–both in quantitative and qualitative studies. First, these challenges make it necessary to reflect on the nature of the disease and its etiology. Further qualitative and quantitative studies on illness perceptions should be sensitive to the potential effect on results when interviewing a group of patients who have slightly varying medical diagnoses as well as different causes and triggers of the disease (i. e., illnesses evolving from genetic disposition vs. lifestyle). Also, this study shows the difficulty of differentiating between emotional representation and psychological consequences. The complexity of illness perceptions of occupational HE presented in this study underlines the multidimensionality of diseases such as occupational HE. Hence, subjective illness perceptions should be reflected by professionals of all disciplines involved in working with those patients (i. e. should be considered in patient training programs and counseling).

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR).

(DOCX)

S2 Appendix. Interview guide.

(DOCX)

S3 Appendix. Category system.

(DOCX)

S4 Appendix. Original German quotes and English translations as presented in publication.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all participants in this study for contributing their time and personal experiences to this study.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared beyond individual quotations in the manuscript because participants did not give consent in terms of publication of their full transcript. The interviews contain sensitive patient data. This decision was made in accordance with the ethics committee of the University of Osnabrück. Details on data are available upon request from the corresponding author or by the Institute for Health Research and Education, Department of Dermatology, Environmental Medicine and Health Theory, University of Osnabrück, Am Finkenhügel 7a, 49076 Osnabrück, Germany (email: johnderm@uos.de).

Funding Statement

The project ‘Mixed-methods study to assess illness perceptions of patients with occupational contact dermatitis of the hands for enhancing patient education and counseling’ [‘SubjeKt: Mixed-Methods-Studie zur Erfassung subjektiver Krankheitstheorien von Patientinnen und Patienten mit berufsbedingten Handekzemen für die Schulungs- und Beratungspraxis’], project no. ext FF_1436, was funded by the Institution for Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services [Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege]. Furthermore, the publication of this study was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and Open Access Publishing Fund of Osnabrück University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Occupational skin diseases and dermal exposure in the European Union (EU-25): policy and practice overview. Luxembourg: Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lushniak BD. The importance of occupational skin diseases in the United States. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2003; 76(5): 325–30. doi: 10.1007/s00420-002-0417-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cahill JL, Williams JD, Matheson MC, et al. Occupational skin disease in Victoria, Australia. Australas J Dermatol 2016; 57(2): 108–14. doi: 10.1111/ajd.12375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Park JS, Park EK, Kim HK, Choi GS. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Occupational Skin Disease in Korean Workers from the 2014 Korean Working Conditions Survey. Yonsei Med J 2020; 61(1): 64–72. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2020.61.1.64 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dear K, Toholka R, Nixon R. Occupational skin disease in mining: an Australian case series. Arch Environ Occup Health 2021; 76(8): 504–10. doi: 10.1080/19338244.2020.1857674 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zack B, Arrandale V, Holness DL. Skin-specific training experience of workers assessed for contact dermatitis. Occup Med 2018; 68(3): 203–6. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqy022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Esmail RY, Sakwari GH. Occupational Skin Diseases among Building Construction Workers in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Annals of Global Health 2021; 87(1): 92. doi: 10.5334/aogh.3102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Keegel T, Moyle M, Dharmage S, Frowen K, Nixon R. The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis (1990–2007): a systematic review. International Journal of Dermatology 2009; 48(6): 571–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-4632.2009.04004.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dietz JB, Menné T, Meyer HW, et al. Incidence rates of occupational contact dermatitis in Denmark between 2007 and 2018: A population-based study. Contact Dermatitis 2021; 85(4): 421–8. doi: 10.1111/cod.13910 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lind M-L, Albin M, Brisman J, et al. Incidence of hand eczema in female Swedish hairdressers. Occup Environ Med 2007; 64(3): 191–5. doi: 10.1136/oem.2005.026211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Piapan L, Mauro M, Martinuzzo C, Larese Filon F. Characteristics and incidence of contact dermatitis among hairdressers in north-eastern Italy. Contact Dermatitis 2020; 83(6): 458–65. doi: 10.1111/cod.13687 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Larese Filon F, Pesce M, Paulo MS, et al. Incidence of occupational contact dermatitis in healthcare workers: a systematic review. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2021; 35(6): 1285–9. doi: 10.1111/jdv.17096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Malik M, English J. Irritant hand dermatitis in health care workers. Occup Med 2015; 65(6): 474–6. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqv067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Larese Filon F, Delneri A, Rui F, Bovenzi M, Mauro M. Contact Dermatitis in Northeast Italy Mechanics (1996–2016). Dermatitis 2019; 30(2): 150–4. doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000456 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Apfelbacher CJ, Radulescu M, Diepgen TL, Funke U. Occurrence and prognosis of hand eczema in the car industry: results from the PACO follow-up study (PACO II). Contact Dermatitis 2008; 58(6): 322–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2008.01329.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Berndt U, Hinnen U, Iliev D, Elsner P. Hand eczema in metalworker trainees–an analysis of risk factors. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 43(6): 327–32. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2000.043006327.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Frosch PJ, Mahler V, Weisshaar E, Uter W. Occupational Contact Dermatitis: General Aspects. In: Johansen JD, Mahler V, Lepoittevin J-P, Frosch PJ, editors. Contact Dermatitis. Cham: Springer; 2019. pp 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Brans R, John SM, Frosch PJ. Clinical Aspects of Irritant Contact Dermatitis. In: Johansen JD, Mahler V, Lepoittevin J-P, Frosch PJ, editors. Contact Dermatitis. 6th ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG; 2021. pp 295–329. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jacobsen G, Rasmussen K, Bregnhøj A, Isaksson M, Diepgen TL, Carstensen O. Causes of irritant contact dermatitis after occupational skin exposure: a systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2022; 95(1): 35–65. doi: 10.1007/s00420-021-01781-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rashid RS, Shim TN. Contact dermatitis. BMJ 2016; 353: i3299. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3299 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Diepgen TL. Occupational skin diseases. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2012; 10(5): 297–313; quiz 314–5 doi: 10.1111/j.1610-0387.2012.07890.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Skudlik C, John SM. Occupational Dermatoses. In: Plewig G, French L, Ruzicka T, Kaufmann R, Hertl M, editors. Braun-Falco´s Dermatology. 4. Aufl. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2022. pp 539–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pesonen M, Jolanki R, Larese Filon F, et al. Patch test results of the European baseline series among patients with occupational contact dermatitis across Europe—analyses of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy network, 2002–2010. Contact Dermatitis 2015; 72(3): 154–63. doi: 10.1111/cod.12333 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Molin S. Pathogenese des Handekzems. Hautarzt 2019; 70(10): 755–9. doi: 10.1007/s00105-019-04474-5 German. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Diepgen TL, Scheidt R, Weisshaar E, John SM, Hieke K. Cost of illness from occupational hand eczema in Germany. Contact Dermatitis 2013; 69(2): 99–106. doi: 10.1111/cod.12038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Boehm D, Schmid-Ott G, Finkeldey F, et al. Anxiety, depression and impaired health-related quality of life in patients with occupational hand eczema. Contact Dermatitis 2012; 67(4): 184–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2012.02062.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hutchings CV, Shum KW, Gawkrodger DJ. Occupational contact dermatitis has an appreciable impact on quality of life. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 45(1): 17–20. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2001.045001017.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kadyk DL, McCarter K, Achen F, Belsito DV. Quality of life in patients with allergic contact dermatitis. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 2003; 49(6): 1037–48. doi: 10.1016/s0190-9622(03)02112-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Thyssen JP, Schuttelaar MLA, Alfonso JH, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema. Contact Dermatitis 2022; 86(5): 357–78. doi: 10.1111/cod.14035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Böhm D, Stock Gissendanner S, Finkeldey F, et al. Severe occupational hand eczema, job stress and cumulative sickness absence. Occup Med 2014; 64(7): 509–15. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqu076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Brans R, Skudlik C, Weisshaar E, Scheidt R, Ofenloch R., Elsner P, et al. Multicentre cohort study ’Rehabilitation of Occupational Skin Diseases—Optimization and Quality Assurance of Inpatient Management (ROQ)’: results from a 3-year follow-up. Contact Dermatitis 2016; 75(4): 205–12. doi: 10.1111/cod.12614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ibler KS, Jemec GBE, Diepgen TL, Gluud C, Lindshou Hansen J, Winkel P, et al. Skin care education and individual counselling versus treatment as usual in healthcare workers with hand eczema: randomised clinical trial. BMJ 2012; 345: e7822. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7822 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Petrie KJ, Weinman J. Why illness perceptions matter. Clin Med 2006; 6(6): 536–9. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.6-6-536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Leventhal H, Leventhal EA, Cameron L. Representations, Procedures, and Affect in Illness Self-Regulation. In: Baum A, Revenson TA, Singer JE, editors. Handbook of health psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001. pp 19–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bathe A, Diepgen TL, Matterne U. Subjective illness perceptions in individuals with occupational skin disease: a qualitative investigation. Work 2012; 43(2): 159–69. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-1365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mollerup A, Johansen JD, Thing LF. Knowledge, attitudes and behaviour in everyday life with chronic hand eczema: a qualitative study. Br J Dermatol 2013; 169(5): 1056–65 doi: 10.1111/bjd.12524 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zack B, Arrandale VH, Holness DL. Workers with hand dermatitis and workplace training experiences: A qualitative perspective. Am J Ind Med 2017; 60(1): 69–76. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mollerup A, Veien NK, Johansen JD. An analysis of gender differences in patients with hand eczema—everyday exposures, severity, and consequences. Contact Dermatitis 2014; 71(1): 21–30. doi: 10.1111/cod.12206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wittkowski A, Richards HL, Griffiths CEM, Main CJ. Illness perception in individuals with atopic dermatitis. Psychol Health Med 2007; 12(4): 433–44. doi: 10.1080/13548500601073928 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Benyamini Y, Goner-Shilo D, Lazarov A. Illness perception and quality of life in patients with contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2012; 67(4): 193–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2012.02071.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Březinová E, Nečas M, Vašků V. Quality of life and psychological disturbances in adults with atopic dermatitis in the Czech Republic. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2017; 31(2): 227–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sloot MM, Loman L, Romeijn GLE, Rosenberg FM, Arents BWM, Schuttelaar MLA. Patients’ perspectives on quality of care for chronic hand eczema: A qualitative study. Contact Dermatitis 2022; 86(3): 204–12. doi: 10.1111/cod.14020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rocholl M, Ludewig M, Brakemeier C, John SM, Wilke A. Illness perceptions of adults with eczematous skin diseases: a systematic mixed studies review. Syst Rev 2021; 10(1): 141. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01687-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lapan SD, Quartaroli MT, Riemer FJ. Chapter 1: Introduction to Qualitative Research. In: Lapan SD, Quartaroli MT, Riemer FJ, editors. Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2012. pp 3–18 [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Apfelbacher CJ, Nelson PA. Patient-reported outcome measures and qualitative research in dermatology: the quest for authenticity. Br J Dermatol 2017; 176(2): 285–7. doi: 10.1111/bjd.15251 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Leventhal H, Phillips LA, Burns E. The Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM): a dynamic framework for understanding illness self-management. J Behav Med 2016; 39(6): 935–46. doi: 10.1007/s10865-016-9782-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Babooram M, Mullan BA, Sharpe L. Children’s perceptions of obesity as explained by the common sense model of illness representation. British Food Journal 2011; 113(2): 234–47. doi: 10.1108/00070701111105321 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Corbett T, Groarke A, Walsh JC, McGuire BE. Cancer-related fatigue in post-treatment cancer survivors: application of the common sense model of illness representations. BMC Cancer 2016; 16(1): 919. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2907-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Shiyanbola OO, Ward EC, Brown CM. Utilizing the common sense model to explore African Americans’ perception of type 2 diabetes: A qualitative study. PLoS One 2018; 13(11): doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207692 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Moosa AS, Leng NSY, Kum CL, Tan NC. A qualitative research study on the illness perception of chronic pruritus in older Asian adults based on the Common-Sense Model of self-regulation. Health Expect 2021; 24(5): 1801–11. doi: 10.1111/hex.13320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Weinman J, Petrie KJ, Moss-Morris R, Horne R. The illness perception questionnaire: A new method for assessing the cognitive representation of illness. Psychology & Health 1996; 11(3): 431–45. doi: 10.1080/08870449608400270 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Moss-Morris R, Weinman J, Petrie K, Horne R, Cameron L, Buick D. The Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychology & Health 2002; 17(1): 1–16. doi: 10.1080/08870440290001494 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Diefenbach MA, Leventhal H. The Common-Sense Model of Illness Representation: Theoretical and Practical Considerations. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless 1996; 5(1): 11–38. doi: 10.1007/BF02090456 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med 2014; 89(9): 1245–51. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Galletta A. Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication. New York, London: New York Univ. Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kuckartz U. Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice & using software. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC: Sage; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Lund T, Petersen SB, Flachs EM, Ebbehøj NE, Bonde JP, Agner T. Risk of work-related hand eczema in relation to wet work exposure. Scand J Work Environ Health 2020; 46(4): 437–45. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3876 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.World Health Organization (WHO). How to use the ICF: A practical manual for using the International. Geneva: WHO; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Surgenor LJ, Snell DL, Siegert RJ, Kelly S, Flint R, Coulter G. Psychometric Characteristics of the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R) in People Undergoing Weight Loss Surgery. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2020; 27(1): 79–88. doi: 10.1007/s10880-019-09624-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science 1977; 196(4286): 129–36. doi: 10.1126/science.847460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Aiggan Tamene

27 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-34217Illness perceptions of occupational hand eczema in German patients based on the common-sense model of self-regulation: A qualitative studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Buse,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 11 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aiggan Tamene

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We acknowledge support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and Open Access Publishing Fund of Osnabrück University. The project ‘Mixed-methods study to assess illness perceptions of patients with occupational contact dermatitis of the hands for enhancing patient education and counseling’ [‘SubjeKt: Mixed-Methods-Studie zur Erfassung subjektiver Krankheitstheorien von Patientinnen und Patienten mit berufsbedingten Handekzemen für die Schulungs- und Beratungspraxis’], project no. ext FF_1436, was funded by the Institution for Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services [Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege]. The funding institution was not involved in the study design, analysis and interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The project ‘Mixed-methods study to assess illness perceptions of patients with occupational contact dermatitis of the hands for enhancing patient education and counseling’ [‘SubjeKt: Mixed-Methods-Studie zur Erfassung subjektiver Krankheitstheorien von Patientinnen und Patienten mit berufsbedingten Handekzemen für die Schulungs- und Beratungspraxis’], project no. ext FF_1436, was funded by the Institution for Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services [Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege]. Furthermore, the publication of this study was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and Open Access Publishing Fund of Osnabrück University.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript, to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, it appears that there are some modifications that will need to be made before we are able to accept it for publication. Your work is a first-rate example of the genre and continues to provide an in-depth examination of the topic at hand. The organized structure, complemented by compelling evidence, results in an engaging and informative read. Its insights are invaluable and will contribute richly to the conversation. Having said this, I still believe that the main argument of your submission could be further fleshed out and strengthened with additional evidence and analysis. Additionally, citations throughout the article should adhere to accepted scholarly standards in PLOS ONE.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you authors for conducting your research on interesting title “Illness perceptions of occupational hand eczema in German 4 patients based on the common-sense model of self-regulation: A qualitative study”. It would benefit for taking action to improve occupational health for work safety. Please find below my comments to improve quality of the paper before publication. Abstract: Which qualitative study design was applied in this study? It is not clear how you analyzed the data. Please provide more description, including any software used to manage data analysis. On the method section you mentioned thirty sex individuals were interviewed, but on the result section, thirty five transcripts were transcribed verbatim and analyzed. Why? The first two sentences of the result part need to be written under method part. Things written under discussion section are not consistent with what was written under method and result part. Why it is needed further qualitative study once you included all dimensions of the model? Introduction: Well-written! Methods Study design: Not clear. Which study design you employed? Recruitment: Statements written here contained concepts that would be incorporated under ethical considerations. Rather write, in detail, about the sampling technique (s) and criteria’s considered to recruit participates. Merge sampling and recruitment together and describe in detail. Data collection: It is surprising that you conducted a 6 minute interview. How did you see it? What is the minimum interview time? You mentioned that the guide was prepared in relation to the dimensions of the model. So, how you see it. This needs especial attention. Additionally, how you fixed the sample size? Were participants come from one organization of different? This is because; different organizations might have different occupational health hazards, which in turn, vary your sample size to reach saturation. Trustworthiness: Your paper lacks trustworthiness section, which is one of the most important sections in qualitative research report. Result: Please provide detail socio-demographic characteristics of the participants. Please provide quote (s) to each categories or themes. Discussion: Please provide implication or interpretations for the findings. ConclusionsPlease rewrite the conclusion section to be consistent with your research findings. Write what you understood from the findings.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written and is technically sound. The methodology employed is acceptable, and the results, discussion and conclusion are well thought through and can make a positive contribution to literature and knowledge. The authors have indicated that the data cannot be made available as the study participants did not consent to that. It is particularly good that the strengths and limitations of the study are clearly discussed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comment.docx

PLoS One. 2023 May 12;18(5):e0285791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285791.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Apr 2023

Point-by-point response for the revision of the manuscript “Illness perceptions of occupational hand eczema in German patients based on the common-sense model of self-regulation: A qualitative study”

Editor Comments

Thank you for submitting your manuscript, to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, it appears that there are some modifications that will need to be made before we are able to accept it for publication. Your work is a first-rate example of the genre and continues to provide an in-depth examination of the topic at hand. The organized structure, complemented by compelling evidence, results in an engaging and informative read. Its insights are invaluable and will contribute richly to the conversation. Having said this, I still believe that the main argument of your submission could be further fleshed out and strengthened with additional evidence and analysis. Additionally, citations throughout the article should adhere to accepted scholarly standards in PLOS ONE.

Response: We thank the editor for reading our manuscript and the comments. We excluded direct quotes from the manuscript body in order to adhere citation standards of ‘Vancouver style’ (see lines 84-87 and 150-154). Thank you for your advice that the main argument of our manuscript could be further fleshed out. This was also suggested by Reviewer 1. Based on your feedback, we added a more precise description of our findings and its implications for practice to our conclusion. However, the aim of our study was to qualitatively explore and present illness perceptions of patients with occupational HE in general. In line with this study aim, we believe that analyses conducted so far allow a first, broad insight into these illness perceptions and we are concerned that further analysis might significantly and unfavorably increase the length of the paper. Yet, we strongly suggest (see also line 418-421) that further research should lay a special focus on the influence of sociodemographic factors on illness perceptions of patients with occupational HE (e. g. regarding different workplaces).

Journal Requirements

Point 1:

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response 1: We have carefully re-checked the style requirements and renamed the attachment files.

Point 2: Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We acknowledge support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and Open Access Publishing Fund of Osnabrück University. The project ‘Mixed-methods study to assess illness perceptions of patients with occupational contact dermatitis of the hands for enhancing patient education and counseling’ [‘SubjeKt: Mixed-Methods-Studie zur Erfassung subjektiver Krankheitstheorien von Patientinnen und Patienten mit berufsbedingten Handekzemen für die Schulungs- und Beratungspraxis’], project no. ext FF_1436, was funded by the Institution for Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services [Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege]. The funding institution was not involved in the study design, analysis and interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The project ‘Mixed-methods study to assess illness perceptions of patients with occupational contact dermatitis of the hands for enhancing patient education and counseling’ [‘SubjeKt: Mixed-Methods-Studie zur Erfassung subjektiver Krankheitstheorien von Patientinnen und Patienten mit berufsbedingten Handekzemen für die Schulungs- und Beratungspraxis’], project no. ext FF_1436, was funded by the Institution for Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services [Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege]. Furthermore, the publication of this study was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and Open Access Publishing Fund of Osnabrück University.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response 2:

Thank you very much for bringing this point to our attention. We removed any funding-related text from the manuscript. We included the amended statements in the cover letter.

Point 3: We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Response 3: We added the project number (ext FF_1436) of the BGW project to the Funding Information section. There is no number for the funding by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft).

Point 4: We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We changed our data availability statement accordingly and included it into the cover letter.

Point 5: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. We have carefully re-checked the reference list and can assure you that we have not included any papers that have been retracted.

Response to Reviewer 1

Point 1: Thank you authors for conducting your research on interesting title “Illness perceptions of occupational hand eczema in German 4 patients based on the common-sense model of self-regulation: A qualitative study”. It would benefit for taking action to improve occupational health for work safety. Please find below my comments to improve quality of the paper before publication.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for carefully reading our manuscript. We have intensively discussed the comments and revised the manuscript according to this feedback.

Point 2 (referring to Abstract): Which qualitative study design was applied in this study?

Response 2: Thank you very much for your comment. We chose an exploratory qualitative approach in our study. We added the term “exploratory” in our Abstract (line 31). Considering data analysis, we applied a qualitative text analysis, which is mentioned in the abstract (line 36-37). In our Methods section, we provide further information. Here, we also refer to the publication by Kuckartz (“Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice & using software “) [56] which thoroughly describes this approach.

Point 3 (referring to Abstract): It is not clear how you analyzed the data. Please provide more description, including any software used to manage data analysis.

Response 3: Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention. We have added this information into the abstract (line 36-38):

Data was analyzed deductively and inductively using qualitative text analysis. MAXQDA 2018 (Verbi, Berlin, Germany), a software for qualitative data analysis, was applied for coding and summarizing of results.

Point 4 (referring to Abstract): On the method section you mentioned thirty sex individuals were interviewed, but on the result section, thirty five transcripts were transcribed verbatim and analyzed. Why?

Response 4: In our results section, we described why one of the interviews was excluded from analysis afterwards. We agree that this should also be described in the abstract and hence, added the following explanation in line 34-36:

One interview had to be excluded before analysis, since one participant’s diagnosis was retrospectively changed from ICD to tinea and hence did not match the inclusion criteria. Thirty-five interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed.

To improve readability and understanding throughout the manuscript, we removed the explanation from the results section and added respective notes into the data collection and data analysis sections (see tracked changes within the manuscript).

Point 5 (referring to Abstract): The first two sentences of the result part need to be written under method part.

Response 5: Thank you very much to your comment. We changed the abstract accordingly (see tracked changes in lines 36 and 39-40).

Point 6 (referring to Abstract): Things written under discussion section are not consistent with what was written under method and result part. Why it is needed further qualitative study once you included all dimensions of the model?

Response 6: Thank you very much for pointing this out. We suggest that future qualitative studies should only look at coherence, as it is a very complex construct. Hence, it would be interesting to see how coherence is represented in different disease patterns that have different complexity. In our opinion, a qualitative approach would be a great advantage to analyze these aspects. We understand that the wording in our abstract is misleading. Therefore, based on your feedback, we changed the sentence as follows (line 52-54):

Future research might further investigate specific aspects of illness perceptions in patients with occupational HE, especially considering the complexity of coherence and overlapping dimensions (i. e. emotional representation and psychological consequences).

Point 6 (referring to Methods): Study design: Not clear. Which study design you employed?

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. As mentioned under point 2 of this revision, we conducted an exploratory qualitative approach. We added the term “exploratory” in our Methods section (see tracked changes, line 117).

Point 7 (referring to Methods): Recruitment: Statements written here contained concepts that would be incorporated under ethical considerations. Rather write, in detail, about the sampling technique (s) and criteria’s considered to recruit participates. Merge sampling and recruitment together and describe in detail.

Response 7: Thank you very much for pointing this out. We agree that we lay a special focus on ethical aspects in our recruitment section which is a sub-section of methods. However, we consider ethical aspects as important information due to the fact that we worked with patients. According to your feedback, we merged Recruitment and Sample (see tracked changes in the manuscript, line 122). Furthermore, we included a more detailed description of our sample (line 134-141).

Point 8 (referring to Methods): Data collection: It is surprising that you conducted a 6 minute interview. How did you see it? What is the minimum interview time? You mentioned that the guide was prepared in relation to the dimensions of the model. So, how you see it. This needs especial attention.

Response 8: Thank you very much for your comment. We agree, that one of the interviews was rather short. However, this was the shortest interview in our data collection (average length was approx. 16 minutes) and despite its shortness, it delivered valuable information on the participants’ individual illness perceptions. In this case, the interviewee was rather fact-oriented and delivered short-sentenced and fact-oriented answers very quickly. The interviewee was neither shy or reticent. Against the background of your feedback, we included the mean interview time into our data collection section (see line 157-158). Furthermore, we added this aspect into our discussion (line 312-314):

The shortest of the interviews lasted 6 minutes. However, it delivered valuable information on the participants’ individual illness perceptions. In this case, the interviewee was rather fact-oriented and delivered short-sentenced and fact-oriented answers very quickly.

Point 9 (referring to Methods): Additionally, how you fixed the sample size? Were participants come from one organization of different? This is because; different organizations might have different occupational health hazards, which in turn, vary your sample size to reach saturation.

Response 9: Thank you very much for your comment. We agree that different occupations and different workplaces (even if the respective occupation is the same) lead to different health threads/skin hazards. However, this was not the focus of our study, especially due to the very heterogenous sample. In accordance to your feedback (see also point 7) we included a more detailed description of our sample (line 134-141) and suggest further research to this aspect in our discussion (see line 418-421).

Point 10 (referring to Methods): Trustworthiness: Your paper lacks trustworthiness section, which is one of the most important sections in qualitative research report.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We already included a completed SRQR checklist as appendix to follow reporting standards for qualitative research which we note under Methods. This is a standard tool in qualitative research papers. However, we are willing to revise our manuscript if the editor of the journal advises us to do so.

Point 11 (referring to Results):

Please provide detail socio-demographic characteristics of the participants.

Response 11: Thank you very much for your comment. It would definitely be interesting to take a thorough look on the influence of socio-demographic characteristics on illness perceptions of patients with occupational HE. However, this was not the aim of this paper. Nevertheless, based on your feedback, we included further details on our sample in the Sample section (see also point 7 of this revision).

Point 12 (referring to Results):

Please provide quote (s) to each categories or themes.

Response 12: Thank you very much for your comment. We agree that quotes in every category are useful and added them under the categories ‘timeline’ and ‘emotional representation’ which were lacking quotes.

Point 13 (referring to Discussion):

Please provide implication or interpretations for the findings.

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. As stated in our discussion, we find it important to consider illness perceptions of patients with occupational HE as a pivotal part of communication between patients and therapists (i. e. doctors, health educators, etc.). We also added this aspect to our conclusion in order to deliver a more precise understanding of our findings (see point 14).

Point 14 (referring to Conclusion):

Please rewrite the conclusion section to be consistent with your research findings. Write what you understood from the findings.

Response 14: Thank you very much for your comment which we have intensely discussed. We have added more detailed information on our findings and its implications for practice (see tracked changes in lines 441-446 and 447-449).

Response to Reviewer 2

Point 1: The manuscript is well written and is technically sound. The methodology employed is acceptable, and the results, discussion and conclusion are well thought through and can make a positive contribution to literature and knowledge. The authors have indicated that the data cannot be made available as the study participants did not consent to that. It is particularly good that the strengths and limitations of the study are clearly discussed.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and the positive response.

Decision Letter 1

Aiggan Tamene

2 May 2023

Illness perceptions of occupational hand eczema in German patients based on the common-sense model of self-regulation: A qualitative study

PONE-D-22-34217R1

Dear Dr. Buse,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Aiggan Tamene

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Aiggan Tamene

5 May 2023

PONE-D-22-34217R1

Illness perceptions of occupational hand eczema in German patients based on the common-sense model of self-regulation: A qualitative study

Dear Dr. Buse:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Mr Aiggan Tamene

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR).

    (DOCX)

    S2 Appendix. Interview guide.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Appendix. Category system.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Appendix. Original German quotes and English translations as presented in publication.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comment.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared beyond individual quotations in the manuscript because participants did not give consent in terms of publication of their full transcript. The interviews contain sensitive patient data. This decision was made in accordance with the ethics committee of the University of Osnabrück. Details on data are available upon request from the corresponding author or by the Institute for Health Research and Education, Department of Dermatology, Environmental Medicine and Health Theory, University of Osnabrück, Am Finkenhügel 7a, 49076 Osnabrück, Germany (email: johnderm@uos.de).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES