The pandemic of COVID-19 is a global challenge for health care, and dermatologists are not standing apart from trying to meet this challenge. The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) has collected recommendations from its Task Forces (TFs) related to COVID-19. The Journal of the EADV has established a COVID-19 Special Forum giving free access to related articles. The psychosocial effects of the pandemic, an increase in contact dermatitis and several other skin diseases because of stress, disinfectants and protective equipment use, especially in healthcare workers, the temporary limited access to dermatologic care, the dilemma whether or not to pause immunosuppressive therapy, and, finally, the occurrence of skin lesions in patients infected by COVID-19 all contribute to significant quality of life (QoL) impairment. Here, we present detailed recommendations of the EADV TF on QoL and patient-oriented outcomes on how to improve QoL in dermatologic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic for several different groups of patients and for the general population.

New treatment options may lead to an increased interest in using reliable and sensitive instruments to assess healthrelated quality of life in people with alopecia areata (AA). The purpose of this paper is to present current knowledge about quality of life assessment in AA. The dermatology-specific Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was the most widely reported health-related quality of life instrument used in AA.

Background Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) may have severe impact on different aspects of patients’ life. Until now there was no EB‐specific quality of life (QoL) instrument for young children. Objective To create EB‐specific proxy module of the Infants and Toddlers Dermatology Quality of Life (InToDermQoL) questionnaire. Methods Focus groups with parents of children with EB were organized. Parents of EB children were interviewed by the project staff with regard to their perception of QoL issues of the skin disease of their children. Results Focus groups with parents of EB children in Ukraine and Romania were organized. Parents represented eight boys and 12 girls from 3 months to 4 years old with different EB types and disease severity. Based on the analysis of focus groups’ results, two EB specific items that were not mentioned by parents of children with other skin diseases and therefore were not included to the dermatology‐specific InToDermQoL questionnaire were developed: ‘problems with defecation’ and ‘problems with shoes’. These problems were mentioned by 55% of all parents and 11.76% of parents that represented EB children older than 1 year, respectively. Conclusion We want to invite other centres and EB related organizations to join our project starting from the pilot test. There are many different reasons why QoL measurement is important in dermatology clinical practice and our goal is practical use of the instrument in children with EB.

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) has started the ‘Healthy Skin @ Work’ campaign aimed to raise awareness among the public and EU authorities on the frequency and impact of occupational skin diseases (OSDs). The EADV Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes (QoL/PO) and on OSD present their mutual position statement on QoL assessment in OSDs. The EADV TFs recommend the use of the DLQI as a dermatology‐specific instrument and SF‐36 as a generic instrument in health‐related (HR) QoL studies on OSDs. The OSD‐specific questionnaire, LIOD, is not recommended for general use in its present form because of its three months recall period. The EADV TFs discourage the use of non‐validated and of non‐validated modifications of previously validated HRQoL instruments. The EADV TFs wish to encourage research into: the HRQoL impact of OSDs other than occupational contact dermatitis and hand eczema; comparisons between the effects of different treatments and other interventions on HRQoL in OSDs; and into the HRQoL impairment of patients with OSDs from different countries, and with different provoking factors, to predict if the results of successful therapeutic and educational interventions may be generalized across countries and between occupations.

The pharmaceutical approach to skin disease has been hugely successful, but despite effective drugs being available and used, there are still vast numbers of people who continue to have some level of persisting skin disease and continue to experience quality of life (QoL) impairment. So the question that needs to be answered, while we await further advances in our drug‐based armamentarium, is how can we improve patients’ QoL, beyond drugs? A working group was formed from members of the EADV Task Force on QoL and Patient Oriented Outcomes. Participants were asked to suggest all the ways in which they considered patients’ QoL may be improved beyond medicines. Four groups of management approaches that may improve QoL in dermatology were identified: interventions within the dermatology service (hospitalization, multidisciplinary teams, patch testing and establishing relevant allergens and education), external services (corrective make‐up, climatotherapy and balneotherapy), psychological (psychological intervention, cognitive therapy, hypnosis), lifestyle (lifestyle behavioural changes, religion and spirituality and music). The ultimate aim of therapy is to eradicate a disease in an individual and return the person’s life to normal. But until the day comes when this has been achieved for every skin disease and for every patient there will be a need to support and assist many patients in additional non‐pharmaceutical ways. These ‘adjuvant’ approaches receive too little attention while dermatologists and researchers strive for better pharmacological therapy. The different ways in which patients may benefit have been reviewed in our paper, but the reality is that most have a very poor evidence base. The research challenges that we have to meet are to identify those approaches that might be of value and to provide evidence for their optimal use. In the meantime, clinicians should consider the use of these approaches where QoL remains impaired despite optimal use of standard therapy.