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.

Tools for a systematic appraisal of integrated community-based approaches to prevent childhood obesity.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation and monitoring methods are often unable to identify crucial elements of success or failure of integrated community-wide approaches aiming to tackle childhood overweight and obesity, yet difficult to determine in complex programmes. Therefore, we aimed to systematically appraise strengths and weaknesses of such programmes and to assess the usefulness of the appraisal tools used. METHODS: To identify strengths and weaknesses of the integrated community-based approaches two tools were used: the Good Practice Appraisal tool for obesity prevention programmes, projects, initiatives and intervention (GPAT), a self-administered questionnaire developed by the WHO; and the OPEN tool, a structured list of questions based on the EPODE theory, to assist face-to-face interviews with the principle programme coordinators. The strengths and weaknesses of these tools were assessed with regard to practicalities, quality of acquired data and the appraisal process, criteria and scoring. RESULTS: Several strengths and weaknesses were identified in all the assessed integrated community-based approaches, different for each of them. The GPAT provided information mostly on intervention elements whereas through the OPEN tool information on both the programme and intervention levels were acquired. CONCLUSION: Large variability between integrated community-wide approaches preventing childhood obesity in the European region was identified and therefore each of them has different needs. Both tools used in combination seem to facilitate comprehensive assessment of integrated community-wide approaches in a systematic manner, which is rarely conducted. Nonetheless, the tools should be improved in line to their limitations as recommended in this manuscript.