BACKGROUND: Various psoriasis treatments are currently available: topical therapy, photo(chemo)therapy, oral agents and biologics. Little is known about patients' satisfaction with these treatment options. Moreover, the few available studies show methodological shortcomings. OBJECTIVES: To answer the following questions: firstly, how satisfied are patients with psoriasis with their current treatment and does patients' satisfaction significantly differ between treatment types when controlling for demographic and clinical factors? Secondly, how important are specific domains of satisfaction to patients, and when taking perceived importance into account, which domains merit the most attention in improving quality of care? METHODS: Members of the two existing Dutch associations for patients with psoriasis were invited to complete a web-based survey, which included a study-specific satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 1293 patients completed the survey (response rate 32%). Overall, patients were moderately satisfied with their current treatment. Patients receiving topical treatment were significantly least satisfied; patients receiving biologic treatment were significantly most satisfied. Overall, patients rated 'treatment effectiveness' as most important, followed by 'treatment safety' and 'doctor-patient communication'. Domains with the highest 'room for improvement' scores were effectiveness of topical therapy, phototherapy and oral agents (but not biologic treatment), convenience of topical treatment and safety of systemic treatments (both oral agents and biologics). CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of patients, biologic treatment is promising. To improve further the quality of psoriasis care, the effectiveness and convenience of topical therapies, the safety of systemic therapies, and doctors' communication skills need to be addressed.
BACKGROUND: Various psoriasis treatments are currently available: topical therapy, photo(chemo)therapy, oral agents and biologics. Little is known about patients' satisfaction with these treatment options. Moreover, the few available studies show methodological shortcomings. OBJECTIVES: To answer the following questions: firstly, how satisfied are patients with psoriasis with their current treatment and does patients' satisfaction significantly differ between treatment types when controlling for demographic and clinical factors? Secondly, how important are specific domains of satisfaction to patients, and when taking perceived importance into account, which domains merit the most attention in improving quality of care? METHODS: Members of the two existing Dutch associations for patients with psoriasis were invited to complete a web-based survey, which included a study-specific satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 1293 patients completed the survey (response rate 32%). Overall, patients were moderately satisfied with their current treatment. Patients receiving topical treatment were significantly least satisfied; patients receiving biologic treatment were significantly most satisfied. Overall, patients rated 'treatment effectiveness' as most important, followed by 'treatment safety' and 'doctor-patient communication'. Domains with the highest 'room for improvement' scores were effectiveness of topical therapy, phototherapy and oral agents (but not biologic treatment), convenience of topical treatment and safety of systemic treatments (both oral agents and biologics). CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of patients, biologic treatment is promising. To improve further the quality of psoriasis care, the effectiveness and convenience of topical therapies, the safety of systemic therapies, and doctors' communication skills need to be addressed.
Authors: Junko Takeshita; Kristina Callis Duffin; Daniel B Shin; Gerald G Krueger; Andrew D Robertson; Andrea B Troxel; Abby S Van Voorhees; Joel M Gelfand Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Daniel J Kadouch; Albert Wolkerstorfer; Yannick Elshot; Biljana Zupan-Kajcovski; Marianne B Crijns; Markus V Starink; Marcel W Bekkenk; Allard C van der Wal; Phyllis I Spuls; Menno A de Rie Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2015-09-10