Patient-reported outcome measures for acne: a mixed-methods validation study (acne PROMs)
Objectives To examine the acceptability and validity of two patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for adult acne, comparing them to the validated Acne-specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) measure.Design Mixed-methods validation study.Setting Participants were recruited by (1) mail-out through pri...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2021-03-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/3/e034047.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846162194480234496 |
|---|---|
| author | Ingrid Muller Miriam Santer Beth Stuart Paul Little Karen Thomas Samantha Hornsey Alison M Layton Leanne Morrison Jamie King |
| author_facet | Ingrid Muller Miriam Santer Beth Stuart Paul Little Karen Thomas Samantha Hornsey Alison M Layton Leanne Morrison Jamie King |
| author_sort | Ingrid Muller |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives To examine the acceptability and validity of two patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for adult acne, comparing them to the validated Acne-specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) measure.Design Mixed-methods validation study.Setting Participants were recruited by (1) mail-out through primary care if they had ever consulted for acne and received a prescription for acne treatment within the last 6 months, (2) opportunistically in secondary care and (3) poster advertisement in community venues.Participants 221 (204 quantitative and 17 qualitative) participants with acne, aged 18–50 years.Outcome measures Quantitative sub-study participants completed Acne-QoL, Skindex-16 and Comprehensive Acne Quality of Life Scale (CompAQ) at baseline, 24 hours and 6 weeks. Qualitative sub-study participants took part in cognitive think-aloud interviews, while completing the same measures. Transcribed audio recordings were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.Results Quantitative analyses suggested high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha 0.74–0.96) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient values 0.88–0.97) for both questionnaires. Both scales showed floor effects on some subdomains. Skindex-16 and CompAQ showed good evidence of construct validity when compared with Acne-QoL with Spearman’s correlation coefficients 0.54–0.81, and good repeatability over 24 hours.Qualitative data uncovered wide-ranging views regarding usability and acceptability. Interviewees held strong but differing views about layout, question/response wording, redundant/similar questions and guidance notes. Similarly, interviewees differed in perceptions of acceptability of the different scales, particularly on relatability of questions and emotive reactions to scales.Conclusions All PROMs performed well in statistical analyses. No PROM showed superior usability and acceptability in the qualitative study. Any PROM should be acceptable for further research in adult acne but researchers should consider the different domains and whether they will measure only facial or facial and trunk acne before making a selection. A new PROM or further evaluation of novel PROMs may be beneficial. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-c684ac67b84f4daa8a1c6225087f61c9 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2021-03-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-c684ac67b84f4daa8a1c6225087f61c92024-11-20T17:30:08ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552021-03-0111310.1136/bmjopen-2019-034047Patient-reported outcome measures for acne: a mixed-methods validation study (acne PROMs)Ingrid Muller0Miriam Santer1Beth Stuart2Paul Little3Karen Thomas4Samantha Hornsey5Alison M Layton6Leanne Morrison7Jamie King8associate professorPrimary Care, Population Science and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UKPrimary Care Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, University of Southampton School of Medicine, Southampton, UKPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UKDivision of Injury Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USAUniversity Of Southampton, Southampton, UK8 Skin Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, UK1 School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UKFaculty of Medicine, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UKObjectives To examine the acceptability and validity of two patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for adult acne, comparing them to the validated Acne-specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) measure.Design Mixed-methods validation study.Setting Participants were recruited by (1) mail-out through primary care if they had ever consulted for acne and received a prescription for acne treatment within the last 6 months, (2) opportunistically in secondary care and (3) poster advertisement in community venues.Participants 221 (204 quantitative and 17 qualitative) participants with acne, aged 18–50 years.Outcome measures Quantitative sub-study participants completed Acne-QoL, Skindex-16 and Comprehensive Acne Quality of Life Scale (CompAQ) at baseline, 24 hours and 6 weeks. Qualitative sub-study participants took part in cognitive think-aloud interviews, while completing the same measures. Transcribed audio recordings were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.Results Quantitative analyses suggested high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha 0.74–0.96) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient values 0.88–0.97) for both questionnaires. Both scales showed floor effects on some subdomains. Skindex-16 and CompAQ showed good evidence of construct validity when compared with Acne-QoL with Spearman’s correlation coefficients 0.54–0.81, and good repeatability over 24 hours.Qualitative data uncovered wide-ranging views regarding usability and acceptability. Interviewees held strong but differing views about layout, question/response wording, redundant/similar questions and guidance notes. Similarly, interviewees differed in perceptions of acceptability of the different scales, particularly on relatability of questions and emotive reactions to scales.Conclusions All PROMs performed well in statistical analyses. No PROM showed superior usability and acceptability in the qualitative study. Any PROM should be acceptable for further research in adult acne but researchers should consider the different domains and whether they will measure only facial or facial and trunk acne before making a selection. A new PROM or further evaluation of novel PROMs may be beneficial.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/3/e034047.full |
| spellingShingle | Ingrid Muller Miriam Santer Beth Stuart Paul Little Karen Thomas Samantha Hornsey Alison M Layton Leanne Morrison Jamie King Patient-reported outcome measures for acne: a mixed-methods validation study (acne PROMs) BMJ Open |
| title | Patient-reported outcome measures for acne: a mixed-methods validation study (acne PROMs) |
| title_full | Patient-reported outcome measures for acne: a mixed-methods validation study (acne PROMs) |
| title_fullStr | Patient-reported outcome measures for acne: a mixed-methods validation study (acne PROMs) |
| title_full_unstemmed | Patient-reported outcome measures for acne: a mixed-methods validation study (acne PROMs) |
| title_short | Patient-reported outcome measures for acne: a mixed-methods validation study (acne PROMs) |
| title_sort | patient reported outcome measures for acne a mixed methods validation study acne proms |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/3/e034047.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ingridmuller patientreportedoutcomemeasuresforacneamixedmethodsvalidationstudyacneproms AT miriamsanter patientreportedoutcomemeasuresforacneamixedmethodsvalidationstudyacneproms AT bethstuart patientreportedoutcomemeasuresforacneamixedmethodsvalidationstudyacneproms AT paullittle patientreportedoutcomemeasuresforacneamixedmethodsvalidationstudyacneproms AT karenthomas patientreportedoutcomemeasuresforacneamixedmethodsvalidationstudyacneproms AT samanthahornsey patientreportedoutcomemeasuresforacneamixedmethodsvalidationstudyacneproms AT alisonmlayton patientreportedoutcomemeasuresforacneamixedmethodsvalidationstudyacneproms AT leannemorrison patientreportedoutcomemeasuresforacneamixedmethodsvalidationstudyacneproms AT jamieking patientreportedoutcomemeasuresforacneamixedmethodsvalidationstudyacneproms |