Further psychometric evaluation of the WOUND-Q: A responsiveness study.

The WOUND-Q is a modular patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with 13 scales measuring constructs across 4 domains (i.e., wound characteristics, health related quality of life, experience of care and wound treatment). The psychometrics of the WOUND-Q were previously assessed and the 13 scales evidenced good validity and reliability. However, the responsiveness (i.e., ability to detect clinical change) of the WOUND-Q has yet to be assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate responsiveness for 9 WOUND-Q scales that assess outcomes, in a sample of people 18 years of age or older with chronic wounds that were present for at least 3 months. This study conducted a 4 month follow-up of 421 participants who completed the WOUND-Q as part of a previous psychometric study. Participants completed an online survey answering questions about their current wound state (e.g., number, type, size, smell, drainage), anchor questions about change, as well as the WOUND-Q scales that they had completed in their initial assessment. Pre-defined hypotheses were tested with a 75% acceptance threshold indicating sufficient evidence of responsiveness. Minimally important differences (MIDs) were also calculated using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Of 390 invited participants, 320 provided responses, ranging in age from 19 to 84 years. Acceptance of hypotheses ranged from 60% to 100%, with only the Symptom scale not meeting the 75% threshold. The findings of this study provide evidence that the WOUND-Q can validly measure clinical change in patients with chronic wounds.

Best Practices for FACE-Q Aesthetics Research: A Systematic Review of Study Methodology.

BACKGROUND: The FACE-Q Aesthetics module is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that evaluates perspectives on facial aesthetic treatments. Improper administration and poor study methodology can compromise the validity and interpretation of this PROM. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review sought to evaluate the administration and scoring of the FACE-Q Aesthetics scales within the literature. METHODS: A search of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed on December 20, 2022, with the assistance of a health-research librarian (CRD42022383676). Studies that examined facial aesthetic interventions using the FACE-Q Aesthetics module as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included for analysis. RESULTS: There were 114 studies included. The Face Overall (n = 52, 45.6%), Psychological (n = 45, 39.4%), and Social (n = 43, 37.7%) scales were most frequently reported. Errors in FACE-Q administration were identified in 30 (26.3%) studies. The most common error was the presentation of raw ordinal scores rather than the converted Q score (n = 23). Most studies reported a time horizon for their primary analysis (n = 76, 66.7%); however, only 4 studies provided a rationale for this selection. Sample size calculations for the primary outcome were rarely performed (n = 9, 7.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There continues to be limitations in PROM administration and the quality of articles that report FACE-Q Aesthetic scale data. The authors suggest that future investigators using the FACE-Q refer to the User's Guide regarding administration and scoring of this scale, report a rationale for the study time horizon, and provide an a priori sample size calculation for the primary outcome of interest.

Development and Psychometric Validation of BREAST-Q Scales Measuring Cancer Worry, Fatigue, and Impact on Work.

BACKGROUND: The BREAST-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure for women with breast cancer. The aim of this study was to develop new BREAST-Q scales to measure Cancer Worry, Fatigue and Impact on Work. METHODS: Data were collected between January 2017 and November 2019. Phase 1 (qualitative) included participants from Canada and the USA, pre/post any type of breast cancer treatment (surgery, adjuvant, neoadjuvant). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded line-by-line. New scales were drafted and refined through cognitive interviews and expert input. Phase 2 (field-test study) involved USA members of the Love Research Army (LRA). Rasch measurement theory analysis was used to examine reliability and validity. RESULTS: In phase 1, 57 women were interviewed. Three concepts were identified as important to the breast cancer experience that are not currently covered in the BREAST-Q and developed into scales, i.e., Cancer Worry, Fatigue and Impact on Work. Feedback from nine women and 23 experts was used to establish content validity. The scales were field-tested in the LRA sample (n = 1680), of whom 1006 completed a test-retest. Reliability was > 0.81 for the person separation index, > 0.89 for Cronbach's alpha and > 0.83 for interclass correlation coefficients. Lower scores on all three scales were significantly associated with being closer in time to diagnosis and having a higher cancer stage at diagnosis (p < 0.001 on ANOVA). CONCLUSION: These new scales expand the BREAST-Q measurement system and provide a means to evaluate additional important outcomes for breast cancer patients in clinical care and research.

Rasch Analysis of Patient- and Parent-Reported Outcome Measures in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Standard Set for Cleft Lip and Palate.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric performance of the patient- and parent-reported measures in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Standard Set for Cleft Care, and to identify ways of improving concept coverage. METHODS: Data from 714 patients with cleft lip and/or palate, aged 8 to 9, 10 to 12.5, and 22 years were collected between November 2015 and April 2019 at Erasmus University Medical Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Duke Children's Hospital, and from participating sites in the CLEFT-Q Phase 3 study. The Standard Set includes 9 CLEFT-Q scales, the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) questionnaire, the Child Oral Health Impact Profile-Oral Symptoms Scale (COHIP-OSS), and the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS). Targeting, item-fit statistics, thresholds for item responses, and measurement precision (PSI) were analyzed using Rasch measurement theory. RESULTS: The proportion of the sample to score within each instruments range of measurement varied from 69% (ICS) to 92% (CLEFT-Q teeth and COHIP-OSS). Specific problems with individual items within the NOSE and COHIP-OSS questionnaires were noted, such as poor item fit to the Rasch model and disordered thresholds (6 of 10). Reliability measured with PSI was above 0.82 for the ICS and all but one CLEFT-Q scale (speech distress). PSIs were lowest for the COHIP-OSS (0.43) and NOSE questionnaire (0.35). CONCLUSION: The patient- and parent-reported components within the facial appearance, psychosocial function, and speech domains are valid measures; however, the facial function and oral health domains are not sufficiently covered by the CLEFT-Q eating and drinking, NOSE, and COHIP-OSS, and these questionnaires may not be accurate enough to stratify cleft-related outcomes.

An international mixed methods study to develop a new preference-based measure for women with breast cancer: the BREAST-Q Utility module.

BACKGROUND: Generic preference-based measures (PBM), though commonly used, may not be optimal for use in economic evaluations of breast cancer interventions. No breast cancer-specific PBM currently exists, and the generic PBMs fail to capture the unique concerns of women with breast cancer (e.g., body image, appearance, treatment-specific adverse effects). Hence, the objective of this study was to develop a breast cancer-specific PBM, the BREAST-Q Utility module. METHODS: Women diagnosed with breast cancer (stage 0-4, any treatment) were recruited from two tertiary hospitals in Canada and one in the US. The study followed an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach, whereby semi-structured interviews were conducted and at the end of the interview, participants were asked to list their top five health-related quality of life (HRQOL) concerns and to rate the importance of each item on the BREAST-Q. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded. Constant comparison was used to refine the codes and develop a conceptual framework. Qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated to develop the content of the Utility module  that was refined through 2 rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer and feedback from experts. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 57 women aged 55 ± 10 years. A conceptual framework was developed from 3948 unique codes specific to breasts, arms, abdomen, and cancer experience. Five top-level domains were HRQOL (i.e., physical, psychological, social, and sexual well-being) and appearance. Data from the interviews, top 5 HRQOL concerns, and BREAST-Q item ratings were used to inform dimensions for inclusion in the Utility module. Feedback from women with breast cancer (N = 9) and a multidisciplinary group of experts (N = 27) was used to refine the module. The field-test version of the HSCS consists of 10 unique dimensions. Each dimension is measured with 1 or 2 candidate items that have 4-5 response levels each. CONCLUSION: The field-test version of the BREAST-Q Utility module was derived from extensive patient and expert input. This comprehensive approach ensured that the content of the Utility module is relevant, comprehensive, and includes concerns that matter the most to women with breast cancer.

Development and Validation of the BREAST-Q Breast-Conserving Therapy Module.

BACKGROUND: In breast cancer surgery, patient-reported outcome measures are needed to measure outcomes best reported by patients (e.g., psychosocial well-being). This study aimed to develop and validate a new BREAST-Q module to address the unique concerns of patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy (BCT). METHODS: Phase 1 involved qualitative and cognitive interviews with women who had BCT and clinical expert input to establish content for the BCT module. A field-test (phase 2) was performed, and Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analysis was used for item reduction and examination of reliability and validity. Validation of the item-reduced scales in a clinical sample (phase 3) was conducted for further assessment of their psychometric properties. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews with 24 women resulted in the addition of 15 new items across multiple existing BREAST-Q scales and the development of two new scales (Adverse Effects of Radiation and Satisfaction With Information-Radiation Therapy). Feedback from 15 patients and 5 clinical experts were used to refine the instructions, response options, and item wording. An RMT analysis of data from 3497 women resulted in item reduction. The final set of scales showed evidence of ordered response option thresholds, good item fit, and good reliability, except for the Adverse Effects of the Radiation Scale. Validity and reliability were further supported by the phase 3 data from 3125 women. CONCLUSIONS: The BREAST-Q BCT module can be used in research and clinical care to evaluate quality metrics and to compare surgical outcomes across all breast cancer surgery patients.

Leveraging patient-reported outcomes data to inform oncology clinical decision making: Introducing the FACE-Q Head and Neck Cancer Module.

BACKGROUND: Existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess patients with head and neck cancer have methodologic and content deficiencies. Herein, the development of a PROM that meets a range of clinical and research needs across head and neck oncology is described. METHODS: After development of the conceptual framework, which involved a literature review, semistructured patient interviews, and expert input, patients with head and neck cancer who were treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were recruited by their surgeon. The FACE-Q Head and Neck Cancer Module was completed by patients in the clinic or was sent by mail. Rasch measurement theory analysis was used for item selection for final scale development and to examine reliability and validity. Scale scores for surgical defect and adjuvant therapy were compared with the cohort average to assess clinical applicability. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 219 patients who completed the draft scales. Fourteen independently functioning scales were analyzed. Item fit was good for all 102 items, and all items had ordered thresholds. Scale reliability was acceptable (person separation index was >0.75 for all scales; Cronbach α values were >.87 for all scales; test-retest ranged from 0.86 to 0.96). The scales performed well in a clinically predictable way, demonstrating functional and psychosocial differences across disease sites and with adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The scales forming the FACE-Q Head and Neck Cancer Module were found to be clinically relevant and scientifically sound. This new PROM now is validated and ready for use in research and clinical care.

A Rasch Measurement Theory Approach to Improve the Interpretation of Patient-reported Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Interpretability is a key challenge for researchers, clinicians, and patients interested in using the output of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. When rich and detailed meaning is required to assist individual patients to make treatment choices we propose that the item content of psychometric rating scales should be better leveraged to improve interpretability. METHODS: Modern psychometric methods such as Rasch measurement theory allow PRO users to map patient progress up or down a scale over time to item benchmarks. These benchmarks represent the relative difficulty associated with each item contained in a scale. The most difficult items benchmark the best overall outcome on a scale and the least difficult items represent the worst overall outcome. The group-level effects of different treatment options can also be mapped to item benchmarks and compared with those of individual patients. DISCUSSION: The proposed method leverages the content already available in PRO instruments to improve interpretation. This approach locates both individuals (in this instance breast cancer patients undergoing surgery) and treatments (in this instance breast reconstruction techniques), on a hierarchy of health variables where each variable represents a progressively more advanced step in the recovery process. The approach can specify the aspects of a health concept where patients are currently competent, and the aspects which they might gain from a new treatment. It can also assist attempts by industry to communicate specific treatment benefits to their target audience. KEY POINTS: The method is best applied when patients need guidance about the likely benefits of different treatment options, when a PRO instrument has been developed using a modern psychometric method such as Rasch measurement theory, when there is good evidence from well-conducted studies of the group-level benefits of different treatment options, and these benefits have been measured using appropriate PROs. The method depends on good "fit" of individual patient responses to an underlying model. However, even when fit is poor it may be useful for patients to understand the "ladder" of health achievements for their condition (from the perspective of the average patient) and where different treatment options sit on this ladder.

Psychometric findings and normative values for the CLEFT-Q based on 2434 children and young adult patients with cleft lip and/or palate from 12 countries.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cleft lip and/or palate can undergo numerous procedures to improve appearance, speech, dentition and hearing. We developed a cleft-specific patient-reported outcome instrument to facilitate rigorous international measurement and benchmarking. METHODS: Data were collected from patients aged 8-29 years with cleft lip and/or palate at 30 hospitals in 12 countries between October 2014 and November 2016. Rasch measurement theory analysis was used to refine the scales and to examine reliability and validity. Normative CLEFT-Q values were computed for age, sex and cleft type. RESULTS: Analysis led to the refinement of an eating and drinking checklist and 12 scales measuring appearance (of the face, nose, nostrils, teeth, lips, jaws and cleft lip scar), health-related quality of life (psychological, social, school, speech distress) and speech function. All scales met the requirements of the Rasch model. Analysis to explore differential item functioning by age, sex and country provided evidence to support the use of a common scoring algorithm for each scale for international use. Lower (worse) scores on CLEFT-Q scales were associated with having a speech problem, being unhappy with facial appearance, and needing future cleft-related treatments, providing evidence of construct validity. Normative values for age, sex and cleft type showed poorer outcomes associated with older age, female sex and having a visible cleft. INTERPRETATION: The CLEFT-Q represents a rigorously developed instrument that can be used internationally to collect and compare evidence-based outcomes data from patients aged 8-29 years of age with cleft lip and/or palate.

DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy: a Rasch analysis.

BACKGROUND: DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy are widely used patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of health related quality of life in people with dementia (PWD). Growing interest in routine use of PROMs in health care calls for more robust instruments that are potentially fit for reliable and valid comparisons at the micro-level (patients) and meso-level (clinics, hospitals, care homes). METHODS: We used modern psychometric methods (based on the Rasch model) to re-evaluate DEMQOL (1428 PWDs) and DEMQOL-Proxy (1022 carers) to ensure they are fit for purpose. We evaluated scale to sample targeting, ordering of item thresholds, item fit to the model, and differential item functioning (sex, age, relationship), local independence, unidimensionality and reliability on the full set of items and a smaller item set. RESULTS: For both DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy the smaller item set performed better than the original item set. We developed revised scores using the items from the smaller set. CONCLUSIONS: We have improved the scoring of DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy using the Rasch measurement model. Future work should focus on the problems identified with content and response options.

Further psychometric validation of the BODY-Q: ability to detect change following bariatric surgery weight gain and loss.

BACKGROUND: Recent systematic reviews have identified that current patient-reported outcome instruments have content limitations when used to measure change following bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to measure change after bariatric surgery using the BODY-Q, a PRO instrument designed for weight loss and body contouring. METHODS: The BODY-Q is composed of 18 independently functioning scales and an obesity-specific symptom checklist that measure appearance, health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and experience of health-care. The sample for this study included patients who were exploring or seeking bariatric surgery in Hamilton (Canada) at the time of the BODY-Q field-test study and who agreed to further contact from the research team. These patients were invited to complete 12 BODY-Q scales and the symptom checklist between 7 June 2016 and 29 November 2016. Data were collected online (REDCap) and via postal surveys. Clinical change was measured using paired t-tests with effect sizes and standardized response means. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 58 of 89 (65%) pre-bariatric participants from the original BODY-Q field-test sample. The non-participants did not differ from participants in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, BMI or initial BODY-Q scale scores. Participants who had undergone bariatric surgery had a mean BMI of 49 (SD = 7) at time 1 and 35 (SD = 7) at time 2. Time since bariatric surgery was on average 2 years (SD = 0.5) (range 0.4 to 3 years). Percentage total weight loss ranged from 12 to 51 (mean 31, SD = 9). The difference in the proportion of patients to report an obesity-specific symptom on the BODY-Q checklist was significantly lower at follow-up for 5 of 10 symptoms. Participants improved on BODY-Q scales measuring appearance (of abdomen, back, body, buttocks, hips/outer thighs, inner thigh), body image and physical function (p < 0.001 on paired t-tests) and social function (p = 0.002 on paired t-test). These changes were associated with moderate to large effect sizes (0.60 to 2.29) and standardized response means (0.47 to 1.35). CONCLUSIONS: The BODY-Q provides a set of independently functioning scales that measure issues important to patients who undergo weight loss. BODY-Q scales were responsive to measuring clinical change associated with weight loss 2 years after bariatric surgery.

Patient experiences and outcomes following facial skin cancer surgery: A qualitative study.

Early melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer of the facial area are primarily treated with surgery. Little is known about the outcomes of treatment for facial skin cancer patients. The objective of the study was to identify concerns about aesthetics, procedures and health from the patients' perspective after facial skin surgery. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 participants. Line-by-line coding was used to establish categories and develop themes. We identified five major themes on the impact of skin cancer surgery: appearance-related concerns; psychological (e.g., fear of new cancers or recurrence); social (e.g. impact on social activities and interaction); physical (e.g. pain and swelling) concerns and satisfaction with the experience of care (e.g., satisfaction with surgeon). The priority of participants was the removal of the facial skin cancer, as this reduced their overall worry. The aesthetic outcome was secondary but important, as it had important implications on the participants' social and psychological functioning. The participants' experience with the care provided by the surgeon and staff also contributed to their satisfaction with their treatment. This conceptual framework provides the basis for the development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument.

Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments for Surgical and Traumatic Scars: A Systematic Review of their Development, Content, and Psychometric Validation.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are of growing importance in research and clinical care and may be used as primary outcomes or as compliments to traditional surgical outcomes. In assessing the impact of surgical and traumatic scars, PROs are often the most meaningful. To assess outcomes from the patient perspective, rigorously developed and validated PRO instruments are essential. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic literature review to identify PRO instruments developed and/or validated for patients with surgical and/or non-burn traumatic scars. Identified instruments were assessed for content, development process, and validation under recommended guidelines for PRO instrument development. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 6534 articles. After review, we identified four PRO instruments meeting inclusion criteria: patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS), bock quality of life questionnaire for patients with keloid and hypertrophic scarring (Bock), patient scar assessment questionnaire (PSAQ), and patient-reported impact of scars measure (PRISM). Common concepts measured were symptoms and psychosocial well-being. Only PSAQ had a dedicated appearance domain. Qualitative data were used to inform content for the PSAQ and PRISM, and a modern psychometric approach (Rasch Measurement Theory) was used to develop PRISM and to test POSAS. Overall, PRISM demonstrated the most rigorous design and validation process, however, was limited by the lack of a dedicated appearance domain. CONCLUSIONS: PRO instruments to evaluate outcomes in scars exist but vary in terms of concepts measured and psychometric soundness. This review discusses the strengths and weaknesses of existing instruments, highlighting the need for future scar-focused PRO instrument development. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Self-Report Scales to Measure Expectations and Appearance-Related Psychosocial Distress in Patients Seeking Cosmetic Treatments.

BACKGROUND: The use of screening scales in cosmetic practices may help to identify patients who require education to modify inappropriate expectations and/or psychological support. OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and validation of scales that measure expectations (about how one's appearance and quality of life might change with cosmetic treatments) and appearance-related psychosocial distress. METHODS: The scales were field-tested in patients 18 years and older seeking facial aesthetic or body contouring treatments. Recruitment took place in clinics in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada between February 2010 and January 2015. Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) analysis was used for psychometric evaluation. Scale scores range from 0 to 100; higher scores indicate more inappropriate expectations and higher psychosocial distress. RESULTS: Facial aesthetic (n = 279) and body contouring (n = 90) patients participated (97% response). In the RMT analysis, all items had ordered thresholds and acceptable item fit. Person Separation Index and Cronbach alpha values were 0.88 and 0.92 for the Expectation scale, and 0.81 and 0.89 for the Psychosocial Distress scale respectively. Higher expectation correlated with higher psychosocial distress (R = 0.40, P < .001). In the facial aesthetic group, lower scores on the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Appearance scale correlated with higher expectations (R = -0.27, P = .001) and psychosocial distress (R = -0.52, P < .001). In the body contouring group, lower scores on the BODY-Q Satisfaction with Body scale correlated with higher psychosocial distress (R = -0.31, P = .003). Type of treatment and marital status were associated with scale scores in multivariate models. CONCLUSIONS: Future research could examine convergent and predictive validity. As research data are accumulated, norms and interpretation guidelines will be established. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Risk.

Using classical test theory, item response theory, and Rasch measurement theory to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures: a comparison of worked examples.

OBJECTIVE: To provide comparisons and a worked example of item- and scale-level evaluations based on three psychometric methods used in patient-reported outcome development-classical test theory (CTT), item response theory (IRT), and Rasch measurement theory (RMT)-in an analysis of the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VFQ-25). METHODS: Baseline VFQ-25 data from 240 participants with diabetic macular edema from a randomized, double-masked, multicenter clinical trial were used to evaluate the VFQ at the total score level. CTT, RMT, and IRT evaluations were conducted, and results were assessed in a head-to-head comparison. RESULTS: Results were similar across the three methods, with IRT and RMT providing more detailed diagnostic information on how to improve the scale. CTT led to the identification of two problematic items that threaten the validity of the overall scale score, sets of redundant items, and skewed response categories. IRT and RMT additionally identified poor fit for one item, many locally dependent items, poor targeting, and disordering of over half the response categories. CONCLUSIONS: Selection of a psychometric approach depends on many factors. Researchers should justify their evaluation method and consider the intended audience. If the instrument is being developed for descriptive purposes and on a restricted budget, a cursory examination of the CTT-based psychometric properties may be all that is possible. In a high-stakes situation, such as the development of a patient-reported outcome instrument for consideration in pharmaceutical labeling, however, a thorough psychometric evaluation including IRT or RMT should be considered, with final item-level decisions made on the basis of both quantitative and qualitative results.

Is the Give Youth a Voice questionnaire an appropriate measure of teen-centred care in paediatric oncology: a Rasch measurement theory analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents have their own views about the cancer care they receive and how they feel they are treated, but their opinions are rarely solicited. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the 56-item Give Youth a Voice (GYV-56), its subscales and its 20-item short-form, are clinically meaningful and psychometrically sound instruments that can be used to measure teen-centred care (TCC) in paediatric oncology. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews and a questionnaire survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative interviews with 38 childhood cancer survivors. GYV-56 data collected from 200 paediatric cancer patients and survivors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The GYV-56, which measures the following four aspects of service delivery: Supportive and respectful relationships; Information sharing and communication; Supporting independence; and Teen-centred services. RESULTS: Qualitative data provided broad support for the TCC conceptual framework and GYV-56 items. After post-hoc reduction of the response options from 7 to 3 (to correct for disordered thresholds), fit to the Rasch model was good, most items showed acceptable fit residuals and chi-square P-values, scale reliability were supported and item locations defined a continuum for TCC that was well-targeted to the sample. By calibrating the items for each subscale and the short-form to the full scale, the scores obtained on each measure are directly comparable. CONCLUSION: Our study found initial support for use of the GYV with a reduced response option format for examining TCC in the adolescent oncology patients. in this paediatric population. Further research using the GYV is needed to elaborate upon our findings.

The development of scales to measure childhood cancer survivors' readiness for transition to long-term follow-up care as adults.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate scales to measure constructs that survivors of childhood cancer report as barriers and/or facilitators to the process of transitioning from paediatric to adult-oriented long-term follow-up (LTFU) care. METHODS: Qualitative interviews provided a dataset that were used to develop items for three new scales that measure cancer worry, self-management skills and expectations about adult care. These scales were field-tested in a sample of 250 survivors aged 15-26 years recruited from three Canadian hospitals between July 2011 and January 2012. Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) analysis was used to identify the items that represent the best indicators of each scale using tests of validity (i.e. thresholds for item response options, item fit statistics, item locations, differential item function) and reliability (Person Separation Index). Traditional psychometric tests of measurement performance were also conducted. RESULTS: RMT led to the refinement of a 6-item Cancer Worry scale (focused on worry about cancer-related issues such as late effects), a 15-item Self-Management Skills scale (focused on skills an adolescent needs to acquire to manage their own health care), and a 12-item Expectations scale (about the nature of adult LTFU care). Our study provides preliminary evidence about the reliability and validity of these new scales (e.g. Person Separation Index ≥ 0.81; Cronbach's α ≥ 0.81; test-retest reliability ≥ 0.85). CONCLUSION: There is limited knowledge about the transition experience of childhood cancer survivors. These scales can be used to investigate barriers survivors face in the process of transition from paediatric to adult care.

Chest and upper body morbidity following immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: The performance of a mastectomy for the treatment or prophylaxis of breast cancer may have long-term implications for both physical and mental well-being in women. The development of breast numbness and phantom breast sensations following mastectomy is well-known; however, relatively little is known about physical morbidity following postmastectomy breast reconstruction. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the level of physical morbidity experienced following three surgical approaches: mastectomy alone, postmastectomy tissue expander/implant reconstruction, and postmastectomy autogenous tissue reconstruction. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a sample of women who had undergone mastectomy with or without reconstruction. Chest and upper body morbidity were evaluated using the BREAST-Q. Physical well-being was compared across three types of breast surgery. RESULTS: In total, 308 of 452 women who received a questionnaire booklet returned completed questionnaires. There was an overall difference in physical morbidity attributable to surgical treatment (P < 0.001). Patients who underwent autogenous tissue reconstruction had the highest (i.e., best) mean physical well-being score. Women who underwent expander/implant reconstruction also had less chronic physical morbidity than women who underwent mastectomy alone (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that women who undergo immediate autogenous tissue reconstruction experience significantly less chest and upper body morbidity than those who undergo either mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction or mastectomy alone. This information can be used to facilitate clinical decision-making, to validate individual experiences of breast cancer survivors, and to inform future innovations to decrease the long-term physical morbidity associated with breast cancer surgery.

Implant breast reconstruction and radiation: a multicenter analysis of long-term health-related quality of life and satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Indications for radiotherapy in breast cancer treatment are expanding. Long-term satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), important outcomes after alloplastic breast reconstruction and radiation, have not been measured in irradiated patients by using a condition-specific, validated patient-reported outcomes instrument. The aim was to evaluate patient satisfaction and HR-QOL in patients with implant breast reconstruction and radiotherapy. METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional survey of patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction from three centers in the United States and Canada, with and without radiation, was performed. Satisfaction with breasts, satisfaction with outcome, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and physical well-being outcomes were evaluated using the BREAST-Q(©) (Reconstruction Module). Multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of radiotherapy on patient satisfaction with breasts with adjustment by patient and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: The response rate was 71 %, with 633 completed questionnaires returned. Mean follow-up was 3.3 years for irradiated patients (n = 219) and 3.7 years for nonirradiated patients (n = 414). Patients with radiation had significantly lower satisfaction with breasts (58.3 vs. 64.0; p < 0.01), satisfaction with outcome (66.8 vs. 71.4; p < 0.01), psychosocial well-being (66.7 vs. 70.9; p < 0.01), sexual well-being (47.0 vs. 52.3; p < 0.01), and physical well-being (71.8 vs. 75.1; p < 0.01) compared with nonirradiated patients. Multivariable analysis confirmed the negative effect of radiotherapy on satisfaction with breasts (ß = -2.6; p = 0.03) when adjusted for patient and treatment factors. CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy has a negative effect on HR-QOL and satisfaction with breasts in patients with implant reconstruction compared with nonirradiated patients. The information provided here can inform decision-making and help set appropriate expectations for patients undergoing implant breast reconstruction and radiation.