Development of a New Patient-reported Outcome Instrument to Evaluate Treatments for Scars: The SCAR-Q

Anne F Klassen, Natalia Ziolkowski, Lily R Mundy, H Catherine Miller, Alison McIlvride, Allison DiLaura, Joel Fish, Andrea L Pusic, Anne F Klassen, Natalia Ziolkowski, Lily R Mundy, H Catherine Miller, Alison McIlvride, Allison DiLaura, Joel Fish, Andrea L Pusic

Abstract

Background: Every year millions of individuals acquire scars. A literature review of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments identified content limitations in existing scar-specific measures. The aim of this study was to develop a new PRO instrument called SCAR-Q for children and adults with surgical, traumatic, and burn scars.

Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of the qualitative datasets used in the development of PRO instruments for plastic and reconstructive surgery, that is, BREAST-Q, FACE-Q, BODY-Q, and CLEFT-Q. The keyword "scar*" was used to extract scar-specific text. Data were analyzed to identify concepts of interest and to form a comprehensive item pool. Scales were developed and refined through multiple rounds of cognitive interviews with patients and with input from international clinical experts between July 2015 and December 2016.

Results: A total of 52 children and 192 adults from the qualitative datasets provided between 1 and 34 scar-specific codes (n = 1,227). The analysis led to the identification of 3 key domains for which scales were developed: scar appearance (eg, size, color, contour), scar symptoms (eg, painful, tight, itchy), and psychosocial impact (eg, feeling self-conscious, bothered by scar). Cognitive interviews with 25 adults and 20 pediatric participants with scars, plus feedback from 27 clinical experts, led to rewording and removal of items, and new items added. These steps ensured content validity for SCAR-Q in a broad range of scars.

Conclusions: The SCAR-Q is now being field-tested. Once completed, we anticipate SCAR-Q will be used in clinical practice and in clinical trials to test different scar therapies.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Number of items per domain by originating sample. Aesth, aesthetics; Aug, augmentation sample; BCT, breast-conserving therapy sample; BODY-Q, body contouring sample; Child YA, child and young adult sample; CLEFT-Q, cleft lip and/or palate sample; Expect, expectations sample; Head Neck, head neck cancer sample; LD, latissimus dorsi sample; Recon, reconstruction sample; Reduct, reduction sample; Skin, skin cancer sample.

References

    1. Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD, et al. An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data. Lancet. 2008;372:139–144..
    1. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist. 2009;74:1–43..
    1. Mundy LR, Miller HC, Klassen AF, et al. Patient-reported outcome instruments for surgical and traumatic scars: a systematic review of their development, content, and psychometric validation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016;40:792–800..
    1. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA, et al. The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1960–1965.; discussion 1966.
    1. Bock O, Schmid-Ott G, Malewski P, et al. Quality of life of patients with keloid and hypertrophic scarring. Arch Dermatol Res. 2006;297:433–438..
    1. Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW. The patient scar assessment questionnaire: a reliable and valid patient-reported outcomes measure for linear scars. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:1481–1489..
    1. Brown BC, McKenna SP, Solomon M, et al. The patient-reported impact of scars measure: development and validation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1439–1449..
    1. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14:967–977..
    1. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011;14:978–988..
    1. Matza LS, Patrick DL, Riley AW, et al. Pediatric patient-reported outcome instruments for research to support medical product labeling: report of the ISPOR PRO good research practices for the assessment of children and adolescents task force. Value Health. 2013;16:461–479..
    1. Bevans KB, Riley AW, Moon J, et al. Conceptual and methodological advances in child-reported outcomes measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10:385–396..
    1. Wong Riff KW, Tsangaris E, Goodacre T, et al. International multiphase mixed methods study protocol to develop a cross-cultural patient-reported outcome instrument for children and young adults with cleft lip and/or palate (CLEFT-Q). BMJ Open. 2017;7:e015467.
    1. Klassen AF, Pusic AL, Scott A, et al. Satisfaction and quality of life in women who undergo breast surgery: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health. 2009;9:11.
    1. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:345–353..
    1. Scott AM, McCarthy CM, Klassen AF, et al. Development of a new BREAST-Q module: The Breast-Conserving Therapy (BCT) module. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:112–113..
    1. Browne JP, Jeevan R, Pusic AL, et al. Measuring the patient perspective on latissimus dorsi donor site outcomes following breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018 Mar;71(3):336–343..
    1. Snell L, McCarthy C, Klassen A, et al. Clarifying the expectations of patients undergoing implant breast reconstruction: a qualitative study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1825–1830..
    1. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, et al. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg. 2010;26:303–309..
    1. Albornoz CR, Pusic AL, Reavey P, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life outcomes in head and neck reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg. 2013;40:341–349..
    1. Lee EH, Klassen AF, Lawson JL, et al. Patient experiences and outcomes following facial skin cancer surgery: a qualitative study. Australas J Dermatol. 2016;57:e100–e104..
    1. Longmire NM, Wong Riff KWY, O’Hara JL, et al. Development of a new module of the FACE-Q for children and young adults with diverse conditions associated with visible and/or functional facial differences. Facial Plast Surg. 2017Oct;33(5):499–508..
    1. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, et al. Satisfaction and quality-of-life issues in body contouring surgery patients: a qualitative study. Obes Surg. 2012;22:1527–1534..
    1. Wong Riff KWY, Tsangaris E, Goodacre TEE, et al. What matters to patients with cleft lip and/or palate: an international qualitative study informing the development of the CLEFT-Q. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Revisions requested.
    1. Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. 1960Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Institute for Education Research.
    1. Khadka J, Gothwal VK, McAlinden C, et al. The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:80.
    1. Willis GB. Analysis of the Cognitive Interview in Questionnaire Design: Understanding Qualitative Research. 2015Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.
    1. Willis GB. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. 2005New York, N.Y.: Sage Publications.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–381..
    1. Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, et al. Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1990;11:256–260..
    1. Andrich D. Rasch Models for Measurement. Sage University Papers Series Quantitative Application in the Social Sciences. 1988Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi