Introduction: Vaccinations are referred to as one of the greatest achievements of modern medicine. However, their effectiveness is also constantly denied by certain groups in society. This results in an ongoing dispute that has been gradually moving online in the last few years due to the development of technology. Our study aimed to utilize social media to identify and analyze vaccine-deniers' arguments against child vaccinations. Method: All public comments posted to a leading Polish vaccination opponents' Facebook page posted between 01/05/2019 and 31/07/2019 were collected and analyzed quantitatively in terms of their content according to the modified method developed by Kata (Kata, 2010). Sentiment analysis was also performed. Results: Out of 18,685 comments analyzed, 4,042 contained content covered by the adopted criteria: conspiracy theories (28.2%), misinformation and unreliable premises (19.9%), content related to the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations (14.0%), noncompliance with civil rights (13.2%), own experience (10.9%), morality, religion, and belief (8.5%), and alternative medicine (5.4%). There were also 1,223 provaccine comments, of which 15.2% were offensive, mocking, or non-substantive. Sentiment analysis showed that comments without any arguments as well as those containing statements about alternative medicine or misinformation were more positive and less angry than comments in other topic categories. Conclusions: The large amount of content in the conspiracy theory and misinformation categories may indicate that authors of such comments may be characterized by a lack of trust in the scientific achievements of medicine. These findings should be adequately addressed in vaccination campaigns.

Even though smoking causes numerous threats to the developing foetus, it is the most common addiction in Polish women of reproductive age. Most studies undertake to examine the subject of opposing second-hand smoking or creating tools to reprimand pregnant women more effectively using a qualitative methodology. The study aimed to determine the profile of a pregnant woman who is willing to oppose the smoking of another pregnant woman. The research was conducted using an original multiple-choice questionnaire. The survey was shared on websites for expecting parents. Completed questionnaires were collected from 11,448 pregnant women. The Wald test for logistic regression was used for statistical analysis. Predictors of whether someone would draw another pregnant women’s attention to the fact that smoking is harmful were: intellectual work (OR 1.136; p-value 0.020) and currently being a student (OR 1.363; p-value 0.004), involvement of the child’s father (OR 1.377; p-value < 0.001), contact with social campaigns (OR 1.150; p-value 0.005) and knowledge about the consequences of smoking, as well as talking to the midwife about the harmfulness of cigarettes during pregnancy (OR 1.655; p-value < 0.001). Interpersonal relationships leave scope for public health interventions. It is worth enhancing criticism against smoking by specialists through information and education campaigns.

Background: The amount of data available online is constantly increasing, including search behavior and tracking trends in domains such as Google. Analyzing the data helps to predict patient needs and epidemiological events more accurately. Our study aimed to identify dermatology-related terms that occur seasonally and any search anomalies during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods: The data were gathered using Google Trends, with 69 entries between January-2010 and December-2020 analyzed. We conducted the Seasonal Mann–Kendal Test to determine the strength of trends. The month with the highest seasonal component (RSV) and the lowest seasonal component (RSV) was indicated for every keyword. Groups of keywords occurring together regularly at specific periods of the year were shown. Results: We found that some topics were seasonally searched in winter (e.g., herpes, scabies, candida) and others in summer (e.g., erythema, warts, urticaria). Conclusions: Interestingly, downward trends in searches on sexually transmitted diseases in comparison with increased infection rates reported officially show a strong need for improved sexual education in Poland. There were no significant differences in trends for coronavirus-related cutaneous symptoms during 2020. We have shown that the seasonality of dermatologically related terms searched in Poland via Google did not differ significantly during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Introduction: Disease-related stress is a common phenomenon. It also occurs in neoplastic diseases. Since physical and mental health are interrelated, it is important to make sure that treatment covers these two areas. Therefore, it is essential to learn how patients with neoplastic diseases can cope with stress. Materials and Methods: The respondents are 306 patients suffering from neoplastic diseases, associated in patient advocacy groups. The method is the Brief-COPE (Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced) questionnaire. Results: The following stress management strategies were most commonly adopted by the patients: acceptance (median 2.25; 25–75% IQR 2.0–3.0), active coping (median 2.0; 25–75% IQR (interquartile range) 1.5–2.0), planning (median 2.0; 25–75% IQR 2.0–2.0), emotional support (median 2.0; 25–75% IQR 1.5–2.0), instrumental support (median 2.0; 25–75% IQR 2.0–2.0), self-distraction (median 2.0; 25–75% IQR 1.5–3.0), and venting (median 2.0; 25–75% IQR 1.5–3.0). A decision to adopt a particular stress management strategy by patients with neoplastic diseases was highly affected by demographic factors (p < 0.05), such as sex, education, age, place of residence and employment. Conclusions: Teaching stress management strategies should be a part of the education process among patients with neoplastic diseases. Before or in the course of treatment, an oncology patient should be educated on the prevention of mental health disorders. The ability to cope with stress is one of the key competences for the course of neoplastic diseases and it can affect the treatment process. Stress management in chronic diseases, including neoplastic diseases, should be approached not only at the level of an individual person but also at the level of the health system as a whole.

Articles reporting research may be full length or brief reports. These should report original research findings within the journal's scope. Papers should generally be a maximum of 4000 words in length, excluding tables, references, and abstract and key points of the article, whilst it is recommended that the number of references should not exceed 30. Review PapersComprehensive, authoritative, reviews within the journal's scope. There are two types of review papers:-systematic review papers: respond to a specific research question, accrue from criterion-based selection of sources, include a quantitative synthesis and a statistical method (meta-analysis), and should adhere to PRISMA guidelines. Guidelines used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity should be noted in methods section. -narrative review papers: the research question may be broad, and the scope of this review is to discuss a specific topic and keep the readers up-to-date about it. This type of review does not necessarily include a methodological approach and its synthesis is usually qualitative. Narrative reviews should include in a developments section, with details regarding data sources used, keywords applied, time restrictions and study types selected. Developments should be based on actual review articles. All review papers should be generally less than 6000 words, excluding abstract, tables, figures and references. References should not exceed 50. Conclusion of the reviews should be specific and stem from the findings. Short ReportsBrief reports of data from original research. Short reports are shorter versions of original articles, may include one table or figure, should not exceed 1500 words, and it is recommended that the number of references should not exceed 15. Short reports are suitable for the presentation of research that extends previously published research, including the reporting of additional controls and confirmatory results in other settings, as well as negative results. Authors must clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both published and unpublished.