The vast majority of non‐melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is attributable to excessive exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR). Outdoor workers are exposed to an UVR dose at least 2 to 3 times higher than indoor workers and often to daily UVR doses 5 times above internationally recommended limits. The risk of UVR workplace exposure is vastly neglected, and the evident future challenges presented in this statement are contrasted with the current situation regarding legal recognition, patient care and compensation. While prevention is crucial to reduce cancer risks for outdoor workers, it is as much of relevance to better protect them through legally binding rules and regulations. Specific actions are outlined in five recommendations based on a Call to Action (table 1). The role of health professionals, including dermatologists, in this context is crucial.

The incidence of non-melanoma and melanoma skin cancer has been rising in Europe. Although the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer has since 2009 classified sunbeds as a Group 1 carcinogen, sunbed use, especially by those under the age of 18, continues to be a concern. As the only platform for cancer leagues in Europe, the Association of European Cancer Leagues decided to explore interest and actions by its member leagues at the national level against sunbed use, to share experiences and to provide background information on possible future collective actions at the EU level.

Background The Tobacco Control Scale (TCS) was first published in 2006 to monitor the implementation of tobacco control policies at country-level in Europe and, since then, every three years a new report (2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016) has been published. Our objective was to develop a website to gather and structure the information included in the TCS reports, to provide friendly dynamic graphics for professionals and the public, as well as, to compile other documents and publications derived from the scale. Methods The original TCS reports were used to bring together all the information and tables included in order to be able to access to all the information from one site. The researchers systematically reviewed all published articles that include the TCS, as main dependent or independent variable and other materials (seminars, photos, etc.) related to the scale. The researchers also generated dynamic graphics for visitors to explore how their countries' scores fluctuate across years and compare with other European countries. The website has been adapted to mobile devices. Results The website (www.tobaccocontrolscale.org) was launched at the 7 th ECTOH in March 2017 in Portugal. It has had 1,556 visits (July 2017): 55.9% direct, 21% referral, 12.9% social (55.7% via Twitter) and 10.2% others; the 73% have been new and 27% returning visitors. By country, 19.7% visitors were from Germany, 8.4% from Switzerland, 8.4% from Spain and 8.2% from the UK. The 17.5% have accessed to the website using either a mobile phone or a tablet. Conclusions The website has been well received by the tobacco control community with almost 1,600 visits from all over the world; however, more diffusion has to be made to stimulate its use and reach a larger audience in the future that could probably extend the use of the scale for tobacco control purposes.

Background: In industrialised countries, about 20% of healthcare spending is currently wasted on ineffective interventions. With growing cancer prevalence and the increasing complexity of care, efficiency must improve – defined as delivering better outcomes to patients for the resources available. Methods: The All.Can initiative was set up as a multi-stakeholder platform to engage policymakers on the need to remove obsolescence and focus resources on what matters most to patients across the cancer care continuum. Members of the group include patient organisations, policymakers, healthcare professionals, research and industry representatives from across Europe and Canada. All.Can has a continued programme of research and policy engagement to achieve its aims. Results: The group issued the following policy recommendations: focus care on what matters most to patients; invest in data to evaluate and monitor whether care is delivering optimal outcomes; instil accountability mechanisms across the cancer care pathway, creating a cycle of continuous improvement; and build political to drive meaningful change to systematise good practice. As a starting point however, we need clear definitions of waste and inefficiency from the patient perspective. All.Can will conduct a comprehensive qualitative survey of cancer patients to create a patient-relevant conceptual framework for waste and inefficiency. The survey will also be extended to oncology specialists. Findings will help determine where greatest opportunities lie to improve efficiency in cancer care, and serve as a basis for concrete policy proposals that may make the greatest difference to cancer patients. Conclusions: Improving efficiency across the entire cancer care pathway is a complex and pressing challenge that will require close collaboration between all stakeholders. The All.Can initiative is a promising way forward. Legal entity responsible for the study: The Health Policy Partnership Ltd Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen and MSD Disclosure: A. Roediger: Employment with MSD. T. Rosvall-Puplett: Employment with Bristol-Myers Squibb. K. Steinmann: Employment with Amgen. S. Wait: Received consultancy fees from Amgen, MSD and Bristol-Myers Squibb (the funders of All.Can) through organisation, the Health Policy Partnership, for providing secretariat to All.Can. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.