Literature DB >> 33638038

Development and Psychometric Validation of the BREAST-Q Animation Deformity Scale for Women Undergoing an Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy.

Elena Tsangaris1, Andrea L Pusic1, Manraj N Kaur2, Sophocles Voineskos2, Louise Bordeleau3, Toni Zhong4, Raghavan Vidya5, Justin Broyles1, Anne F Klassen6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of animation deformity on health-related quality of life, a content-specific, valid, and reliable patient-reported outcome measure is needed. This report describes the development and validation of the BREAST-Q Animation Deformity scale.
METHODS: Women with breast cancer who had an implant-based reconstruction provided data. In phase 1 (January 2017 and December 2018), qualitive and cognitive patient interviews and expert input were used to develop and refine scale content. In phase 2 (March to June 2019), a field test study with members of the Love Research Army (LRA) was conducted. Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) analysis was used to examine psychometric properties.
RESULTS: In phase 1 of the study, qualitative (n = 11) and cognitive (n = 4) interview data and expert input (n = 9) led to the development of a 12-item scale measuring animation deformity. In phase 2, 651 LRA members provided data and 349 participated in a test-retest study. In the RMT analysis, the data fit the Rasch model (X2(96) = 104.06; p = 0.27). The scale's reliability was high, with person separation index and Cronbach alpha values with/without extremes of ≥ 0.84 and ≥ 0.92 respectively, and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.94). Mean scores on the Animation Deformity scale varied as predicted across subgroups of participants who reported differing amounts of change in breast appearance when their arms were lifted overhead or when they lifted something heavy, and for increasing happiness with the overall outcome of their breast reconstruction.
CONCLUSION: The 12-item Animation Deformity scale forms a new scale in the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module that can be used in comparative effectiveness research or to inform clinical care.
© 2021. Society of Surgical Oncology.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33638038     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-09619-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  40 in total

1.  The Impact of Animation Deformity on Quality of Life in Post-Mastectomy Reconstruction Patients.

Authors:  Hilton Becker; Nicole Fregosi
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 4.283

2.  Pain after breast surgery: a survey of 282 women.

Authors:  M S Wallace; A M Wallace; J Lee; M K Dobke
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 6.961

3.  Breast reconstruction following mastectomy: a comparison of submuscular and subcutaneous techniques.

Authors:  R P Gruber; R A Kahn; H Lash; M R Maser; D B Apfelberg; D R Laub
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1981-03       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  A technique to decrease breast shape deformity during muscle contraction in submuscular augmentation mammaplasty.

Authors:  Mario Pelle-Ceravolo; Aldo Del Vescovo; Ettore Bertozzi; Paola Molinari
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.326

5.  Prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with porcine acellular dermal matrix: a new technique for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Authors:  Roland Reitsamer; Florentia Peintinger
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 2.740

6.  Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Safe Alternative to Submuscular Prosthetic Reconstruction following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

Authors:  Hani Sbitany; Merisa Piper; Rachel Lentz
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position.

Authors:  Dennis C Hammond; William P Schmitt; Elizabeth A O'Connor
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation.

Authors:  Scott L Spear; Jaime Schwartz; Joseph H Dayan; Mark W Clemens
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2008-12-04       Impact factor: 2.326

9.  Results of subglandular versus subpectoral augmentation over time: one surgeon's observations.

Authors:  Eugene Joseph Strasser
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.283

10.  Management based on grading of animation deformity following implant-based subpectoral breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Raghavan Vidya; Habib Tafazal; Fathi Salem; Fahad Mujtaba Iqbal; Tapan Sircar
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2018-03-15
View more
  3 in total

1.  Discussion: "Development and Psychometric Validation of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Arm Lymphedema: LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity Module".

Authors:  Mark V Schaverien; Edward I Chang
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-04-02       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Pectoral Muscle Re-Attachment with Breast Implant Removal.

Authors:  Richard A Baxter; Umar Daraz Khan
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 2.708

3.  Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used for Assessing Breast Sensation after Mastectomy: Not Fit for Purpose.

Authors:  Hansje P Smeele; Rachel C H Dijkstra; Merel L Kimman; René R W J van der Hulst; Stefania M H Tuinder
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 3.481

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.