Qualités psychométriques de la version française de la TAS-20 et prévalence de l'alexithymie chez 264 adolescents tout-venant [The 20-item Toronto alexithymia scale: structural validity, internal consistency and prevalence of alexithymia in a Swiss adolescent sample]

L'objectif de cette étude est d'examiner la structure factorielle et la consistance interne de la TAS-20 sur un échantillon d'adolescents (n = 264), ainsi que de décrire la distribution des caractéristiques alexithymiques dans cet échantillon. La structure à trois facteurs de la TAS-20 a été confirmée par notre analyse factorielle confirmatoire. La consistance interne, mesurée à l'aide d'alpha de Cronbach, est acceptable pour le premier facteur (difficulté à identifier les sentiments (DIF)), bonne pour le second (difficulté à verbaliser les sentiments (DDF)), mais en revanche, faible pour le troisième facteur (pensées orientées vers l'extérieur (EOT)). Les résultats d'une Anova mettent en évidence une tendance linéaire indiquant que plus l'âge augmente plus le niveau d'alexithymie (score total TAS-20), la difficulté à identifier les sentiments et les pensées orientées vers l'extérieur diminuent. En ce qui concerne la prévalence de l'alexithymie, on remarque en effet que 38,5 % des adolescents de moins de 16 ans sont considérés comme alexithymiques, contre 30,1 % des 16-17 ans et 22 % des plus de 17 ans. Notre étude indique donc que la TAS-20 est un instrument adéquat pour évaluer l'alexithymie à l'adolescence, tout en suggérant quelques précautions étant donné l'aspect développemental de cette période.

Risk perception, emotion regulation and impulsivity as predictors of risk behaviours among adolescents in Switzerland

The purpose of this study was to explore the frequency of risk behaviours among Swiss adolescents and their links with risk perception, impulsivity and emotion regulation abilities, operationalized with the concepts of alexithymia and emo- tional openness. We recruited 144 subjects (aged 14-20), who completed the Risk Involvement and Perception Scale (RIPS-R), the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale, the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), and the 20-item Dimensions of Openness to Emotional Experiences (DOE-20) questionnaire. Findings revealed that a greater perception of benefits and a higher level of sensation seeking were associated with more involvement in risk behaviours, which are essentially socially accepted behaviours. Notably, the path model indicated that the perception of benefits was a mediator in the relationship between sensation seeking and risk behaviours. The results add to the psychological understanding of factors associated with risk behaviours in adolescence. The limitations and implications of these results for developmental theories, research, and prevention are stated.

Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009 : analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2)

BACKGROUND: Worldwide data for cancer survival are scarce. We aimed to initiate worldwide surveillance of cancer survival by central analysis of population-based registry data, as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems, and to inform global policy on cancer control. METHODS: Individual tumour records were submitted by 279 population-based cancer registries in 67 countries for 25·7 million adults (age 15-99 years) and 75 000 children (age 0-14 years) diagnosed with cancer during 1995-2009 and followed up to Dec 31, 2009, or later. We looked at cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, and prostate in adults, and adult and childhood leukaemia. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were corrected by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival, adjusted for background mortality in every country or region by age (single year), sex, and calendar year, and by race or ethnic origin in some countries. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. FINDINGS: 5-year survival from colon, rectal, and breast cancers has increased steadily in most developed countries. For patients diagnosed during 2005-09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around the world; for breast cancer, 5-year survival rose to 85% or higher in 17 countries worldwide. Liver and lung cancer remain lethal in all nations: for both cancers, 5-year survival is below 20% everywhere in Europe, in the range 15-19% in North America, and as low as 7-9% in Mongolia and Thailand. Striking rises in 5-year survival from prostate cancer have occurred in many countries: survival rose by 10-20% between 1995-99 and 2005-09 in 22 countries in South America, Asia, and Europe, but survival still varies widely around the world, from less than 60% in Bulgaria and Thailand to 95% or more in Brazil, Puerto Rico, and the USA. For cervical cancer, national estimates of 5-year survival range from less than 50% to more than 70%; regional variations are much wider, and improvements between 1995-99 and 2005-09 have generally been slight. For women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2005-09, 5-year survival was 40% or higher only in Ecuador, the USA, and 17 countries in Asia and Europe. 5-year survival for stomach cancer in 2005-09 was high (54-58%) in Japan and South Korea, compared with less than 40% in other countries. By contrast, 5-year survival from adult leukaemia in Japan and South Korea (18-23%) is lower than in most other countries. 5-year survival from childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is less than 60% in several countries, but as high as 90% in Canada and four European countries, which suggests major deficiencies in the management of a largely curable disease. INTERPRETATION: International comparison of survival trends reveals very wide differences that are likely to be attributable to differences in access to early diagnosis and optimum treatment. Continuous worldwide surveillance of cancer survival should become an indispensable source of information for cancer patients and researchers and a stimulus for politicians to improve health policy and health-care systems. FUNDING: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Toronto, Canada), Cancer Focus Northern Ireland (Belfast, UK), Cancer Institute New South Wales (Sydney, Australia), Cancer Research UK (London, UK), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA), Swiss Re (London, UK), Swiss Cancer Research foundation (Bern, Switzerland), Swiss Cancer League (Bern, Switzerland), and University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY, USA).