From qualitative data to a measurement instrument: A clarification and elaboration of choices made in the development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 3.0.

PURPOSE: To clarify and elaborate on the choices that were made in the development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale 3.0 (POSAS 3.0), based upon the rich information obtained from patients during focus groups and pilot tests. METHODS: The discussions described in this paper are a reflection of the focus group study and pilot tests that were conducted in order to develop the Patient Scale of the POSAS3.0. The focus groups took place in the Netherlands and Australia and included 45 participants. Pilot tests were performed with 15 participants in Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. RESULTS: We discussed the selection, wording and merging of 17 included items. Additionally, the reason for exclusion of 23 characteristics are given. CONCLUSION: Based upon the unique and rich material of patient input obtained, two versions of the Patient Scale of the POSAS3.0 were developed: the Generic version, and the Linear scar version. The discussions and decisions taken during the development are informative for a good understanding of the POSAS 3.0 and are indispensable as a background for future translations and cross-cultural adaptations.

Development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 3.0: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) is widely used for measurements of scar quality. This encompasses visual, tactile and sensory characteristics of the scar. The Patient Scale of previous POSAS versions was lacking input from patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop the POSAS3.0, Patient Scale with involvement of adults patients with all scar types, complying with the highest clinimetric standards. METHODS: From February 2018 to April 2019, a series of six focus group interviews were performed in the Netherlands and Australia to identify scar quality characteristics that adults with scars consider to be important. All focus groups were transcribed, anonymized and analysed using a thematic analysis. Relevant characteristics were formulated into items, resulting in a Dutch and English version of the Patient Scale. These drafts were pilot tested in Australia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and refined accordingly. RESULTS: A total of 21 relevant scar quality characteristics were identified during the focus groups. Two distinct versions of the POSAS3.0, Patient Scale were developed. The Generic version contains 16 items and can be used for all scar types, except linear scars. The Linear Scar version of the Patient Scale contains the same 16 items, with an extra item referring to the widening of scar margins. All included items are rated on a verbal rating scale with five response options. CONCLUSION: Two versions of the POSAS3.0 Patient Scale were developed. Further field tests are being performed to establish the measurement properties and scoring algorithm of the scales.

The longitudinal validity, reproducibility and responsiveness of the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (caregiver report for young children version) for measuring health-related quality of life in children with burn scars.

BACKGROUND: The measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) provides information about the perceived burden of the health condition and treatments from a lived experience. The Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (caregiver report for young children, BBSIP0-8), developed in 2013, is a proxy-report measure of burn scar-specific HRQoL. The aim of this study was to report its psychometric properties in line with an evaluative purpose. METHODS: Caregivers of children up to 8 years of age at risk of burn scarring were recruited into a prospective, longitudinal cohort study. Caregivers completed the BBSIP0-8, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory and Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale at baseline (approximately ≥85% of the total body surface area re-epithelialised), 1-2 weeks after baseline and 1-month after baseline. Psychometric properties measured included internal consistency, test-retest reliability, validity and responsiveness. RESULTS: Eighty-six caregivers of mostly male children (55%), of a median age (IQR) of 1 year, 10 months (2 years, 1 month) and total body surface area burn of 1.5% (3.0%) were recruited. Over one third of participants were grafted and 15% had contractures or skin tightness at baseline. Internal consistency of ten item groups ranged from 0.73 to 0.96. Hypothesised correlations of changes in the BBSIP0-8 items with changes in criterion measures supported longitudinal validity (ρ ranging from -0.73 to 0.68). The majority of item groups had acceptable reproducibility (ICC = 0.65-0.83). The responsiveness of five item groups was supported (AUC = 0.71-0.90). CONCLUSION: The psychometric properties tested support the use of the BBSIP0-8 as an evaluative measure of burn scar-related health-related quality of life for children aged below eight years in the early post-acute period of rehabilitation. Further investigation at longer time period after burn injury is indicated.

Postburn dyspigmentation: its assessment, management, and relationship to scarring--a review of the literature.

Dyspigmentation often arises after deep partial- or full-thickness burns, and assessment of postburn scarring traditionally includes pigmentation. However, the relationship between dyspigmentation and scarring remains unclear. The physiologic basis of dyspigmentation has often been disregarded, and in pathologic states, its origin has been assumed to be in the epidermal melanin. Greater understanding of dyspigmentation among clinicians is required to increase knowledge and accuracy of assessment. This article aims to review the physiologic basis of pigmentation, and address the assessment, preventative management, and treatment options for postburn dyspigmentation.