Heather Kornmehl1, Kristina Callis Duffin2, Nicole Salame3, Lourdes M Perez-Chada4, Sanminder Singh5, Amit Garg6, Alice B Gottlieb7, John Latella8, Joseph F Merola9, April W Armstrong10. 1. Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Department of Dermatology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 3. UC Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, California, USA. 4. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, California, USA. 6. Department of Dermatology, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, New York, USA. 7. Department of Dermatology, New York Medical College, Metropolitan Hospital, New York, New York, USA. 8. International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM), Windsor, Connecticut, USA. 9. Department of Dermatology and Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 10. Department of Dermatology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA, armstrongpublication@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: In dermatology clinical trials, assessment of patients' treatment satisfaction is crucial but often lacking. To address this need, IDEOM's Psoriasis Working Group seeks to evaluate, develop, and validate treatment satisfaction instruments for the psoriasis population. The Psoriasis Working Group aimed to determine (1) factors affecting psoriasis patients' satisfaction with their therapies, (2) adequacy of two commonly used generic treatment satisfaction instruments in reflecting the psoriasis patients' perspective, and (3) whether a need exists to develop a new treatment satisfaction instrument. METHODS: Patient perspectives on satisfaction with treatment efficacy, safety, convenience, and overall satisfaction were elicited.Stakeholders were presented with information regarding the feasibility and content validity of two generic treatment instruments, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) and the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q). We conducted a nominal group discussion and survey to determine whether stakeholders considered these instruments feasible and adequate to address treatment satisfaction for psoriasis therapies. RESULTS: Forty-five stakeholders participated in the nominal group discussion and survey. 53% of participants voted that the TSQM and SATMED-Q are not adequate and that we should create a new dermatology-specific treatment satisfaction instrument. Patients and other stakeholders also provided feedback on aspects of treatment satisfaction important to them. These include speed of onset and durability of therapeutic effect of a medication, permanence of side effects, and convenience of administering the medication. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders, including patients and providers, determined that generic treatment satisfaction questionnaires are not adequate to evaluate treatment satisfaction in psoriasis patients.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: In dermatology clinical trials, assessment of patients' treatment satisfaction is crucial but often lacking. To address this need, IDEOM's Psoriasis Working Group seeks to evaluate, develop, and validate treatment satisfaction instruments for the psoriasis population. The Psoriasis Working Group aimed to determine (1) factors affecting psoriasispatients' satisfaction with their therapies, (2) adequacy of two commonly used generic treatment satisfaction instruments in reflecting the psoriasispatients' perspective, and (3) whether a need exists to develop a new treatment satisfaction instrument. METHODS:Patient perspectives on satisfaction with treatment efficacy, safety, convenience, and overall satisfaction were elicited.Stakeholders were presented with information regarding the feasibility and content validity of two generic treatment instruments, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) and the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q). We conducted a nominal group discussion and survey to determine whether stakeholders considered these instruments feasible and adequate to address treatment satisfaction for psoriasis therapies. RESULTS: Forty-five stakeholders participated in the nominal group discussion and survey. 53% of participants voted that the TSQM and SATMED-Q are not adequate and that we should create a new dermatology-specific treatment satisfaction instrument. Patients and other stakeholders also provided feedback on aspects of treatment satisfaction important to them. These include speed of onset and durability of therapeutic effect of a medication, permanence of side effects, and convenience of administering the medication. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders, including patients and providers, determined that generic treatment satisfaction questionnaires are not adequate to evaluate treatment satisfaction in psoriasispatients.