Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the information needs of women with breast cancer attending care at a major hospital in Ethiopia. It also aimed at describing the association of information needs with sociodemographic and clinical variables, preferred sources of information, and time to have it. Patients and Methods: A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted on 375 women with breast cancer at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital. Data were collected by interview and Toronto information needs questionnaire for breast cancer which contains 52 items categorized under five domains was pretested, adopted, and used to address the information needs of patients. One way ANOVA was done to get an association of sociodemographic and clinical variables with information needs. All statistical analysis was performed using STATA (Version 14), and statistical significance was set at P ≤ 0.05. Results: The total mean score for overall information needs among breast cancer patients was 238.7 (22.5) with a range scale of 156– 260. Among the five subscales information on disease and information on treatment were the most highly needed areas with a mean percentage of 94.8 and 93.7, respectively; and 254 (67%) of them preferred the information to come from health professionals. Diagnosing as stage IV (p=0.0005) and urban residence (0.02) was associated with less and high information needs, respectively. Conclusion: The information needs of breast cancer patients were high. Determining what the patient’s needs are an important aspect of providing health care especially in cancer care. The healthcare system should include a way of information provision system for breast cancer patients based on their needs.

This study aimed to compare the distribution of indoor, outdoor, and personal PM_2.5 (particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm) hourly concentrations measured simultaneously among 81 nonsmoking elderly participants (65 years or older) living in urban, industrial, or rural areas over 4 seasons (2 weeks per season) from November 2021 to July 2022). PM_2.5 measurements were conducted using low-cost sensors with quality control and quality assurance tests. Seasonal outdoor PM_2.5 levels were 16.4 (9.1–29.6) μg/m³, 20.5 (13.0–38.0) μg/m³, 18.2 (10.2–31.8) μg/m³, and 9.5 (3.8–18.7) μg/m³ for fall, winter, spring, and summer, respectively. For indoor PM_2.5, the median seasonal range was 5.9–7.5 μg/m³, and the median personal PM_2.5 exposure concentration was 8.0–9.4 μg/m³. This study provided seasonal distributions of IO (ratio of indoor to outdoor PM_2.5 concentration) and PO (ratio of personal to outdoor PM_2.5 concentration) using a total of 94,676 paired data points. The median seasonal IO ranged from 0.30 to 0.51 in fall, winter, and spring; its value of summer was 0.70. The median PO by season and study area were close to 1.0 in summer while it ranged 0.5 to 0.7 in other seasons, statistically significantly lower (p < 0.05) than that in summer. Our study has revealed that the real-world exposure level to PM_2.5 among our elderly study participants might be lower than what was initially expected based on the outdoor data for most of the time. Further investigation may need to identify the reasons for the discrepancy, personal behavior patterns, and the effectiveness of any indoor air quality control system.