Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHornsey, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorStuart, Ben_US
dc.contributor.authorMuller, Ien_US
dc.contributor.authorLayton, AMen_US
dc.contributor.authorMorrison, Len_US
dc.contributor.authorKing, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorThomas, Ken_US
dc.contributor.authorLittle, Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorSanter, Men_US
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-25T08:48:06Z
dc.date.issued2021-03-19en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/88321
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: 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.en_US
dc.format.extente034047 - ?en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ Openen_US
dc.rightsAttribution 3.0 United States*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/*
dc.subjectacceptabilityen_US
dc.subjectacneen_US
dc.subjectadulten_US
dc.subjectadult dermatologyen_US
dc.subjectpatient reported outcome measuresen_US
dc.subjectvalidityen_US
dc.subjectAcne Vulgarisen_US
dc.subjectAdolescenten_US
dc.subjectAdulten_US
dc.subjectHumansen_US
dc.subjectMiddle Ageden_US
dc.subjectPatient Reported Outcome Measuresen_US
dc.subjectQuality of Lifeen_US
dc.subjectReproducibility of Resultsen_US
dc.subjectSurveys and Questionnairesen_US
dc.subjectYoung Adulten_US
dc.titlePatient-reported outcome measures for acne: a mixed-methods validation study (acne PROMs).en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034047en_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33741658en_US
pubs.issue3en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US
pubs.volume11en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 3.0 United States
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 3.0 United States