Literature DB >> 31525439

Achieving Consensus on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Practice for Inflammatory Skin Disorders: On Behalf of International Dermatology Outcome Measures and the American Academy of Dermatology.

Lourdes Perez-Chada1, Vanina L Taliercio2, Alice Gottlieb3, Marta Van Beek4, Kristina Callis Duffin2, Margo Reeder5, Joseph F Merola6, Robert A Swerlick7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The International Dermatology Outcome Measures and the American Academy of Dermatology recently agreed on a physician-reported global severity measure to demonstrate quality of care in inflammatory dermatoses. Because patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are also important, we aimed to achieve consensus on a PROM for clinical practice.
METHODS: Patients and providers participated in a consensus-building study using a modified-Delphi technique. Voting focused on identifying: (i)minimal set of assessments for clinical practice; (ii)patient-global assessments (PtGAs); (iii)Skindex instruments; and (iv)final instrument selection for quality improvement.
RESULTS: Among 53 stakeholders, >70% agreed that identification of patient goals, assessment of treatment harm and assessment of the adequacy of treatment response were the minimal assessments for clinical practice. The most preferred PtGA was a 5-point PtGA (0=clear to 4=severe) with an optional check-box: "worst ever". A new metric assessing change since treatment initiation called "trajectory measure" was proposed. Stakeholders preferred Skindex instruments over PtGAs and a trajectory measure for clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS: PtGAs as standalone measures do not adequately capture the patient's assessment of disease severity or impact of care. The combination of PtGAs with Skindex or other measure of health-related quality of life may provide a more comprehensive evaluation of patients in clinical practice.
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IDEOM; acne; atopic dermatitis; inflammatory dermatoses; psoriasis; quality measure; quality of care

Year:  2019        PMID: 31525439     DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.09.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol        ISSN: 0190-9622            Impact factor:   11.527


  4 in total

1.  Clinicians' perspectives on the integration of electronic patient-reported outcomes into dermatology clinics: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Vanina L Taliercio; Ashley M Snyder; Allison M Biggs; Jacob Kean; Rachel Hess; Kristina Callis Duffin; Amy M Cizik; Aaron M Secrest
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-11-02       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM): Report from the 2020 Annual Meeting.

Authors:  Alison H Kohn; Afsaneh Alavi; April W Armstrong; Folawiyo Babalola; Amit Garg; Alice B Gottlieb; Lesley Grilli; Gregor Borut Ernst Jemec; John Latella; Kendall Marcus; Joseph F Merola; Alex G Ortega-Loayza; Daniel M Siegel; Vibeke Strand; Jerry K L Tan; Lourdes M Perez-Chada
Journal:  Dermatology       Date:  2021-09-17       Impact factor: 5.197

3.  The association between acne care provision and quality of life: A cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Femke de Vries; Rieke Driessen; Esther Tjin; Anissa Westenberg; Hans Vehof; Peter van de Kerkhof
Journal:  Health Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-08

4.  Development of a core outcome domain set for clinical research on capillary malformations (the COSCAM project).

Authors:  G B Langbroek; A Wolkerstorfer; S E R Horbach; P I Spuls; K M Kelly; S J Robertson; M I van Raath; F Al-Niaimi; T Kono; P Boixeda; H J Laubach; A M Badawi; A Troilius Rubin; M Haedersdal; W Manuskiatti; C M A M van der Horst; D T Ubbink
Journal:  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 6.166

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.