Development and Validation of the Oxford Skin Cancer Treatment Scale, a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Health-Related Quality of Life and Treatment Satisfaction After Skin Cancer Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are necessary to assess the value of skin cancer treatment and to better compare therapeutic options. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate the Oxford Skin Cancer Treatment (OxSCanTr) scale, evaluating health-related quality of life and satisfaction after skin cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After qualitative patient interviews, international expert consultation, and item reduction, 2 separate patient samples were used to assess the factor structure of the scale. Exploratory factor analysis with categorical variables and a polychoric correlation matrix followed by promax oblique rotation was performed to establish a factor structure on Group A. Confirmatory factor analysis with a Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic evaluating the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR), and comparative fit index (CFI) was conducted on Group B. Reliability as internal consistency was assessed using McDonald omega. Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 480 subjects returned completed surveys (completion rate 96%). A 12-item scale was developed encompassing 4 domains: aesthetic satisfaction, treatment choice satisfaction, treatment experience, and future concerns regarding recurrence/spread. Confirmatory factor analysis showed excellent goodness-of-fit characteristics, with RMSEA = 0.048, SRMR = 0.051, and CFI = 0.962 using the 4-factor model. Reliability was very good (McDonald omega 0.81-0.82), as was convergent validity with the FACE-Q skin cancer module appraisal of scars subscale (r = 0.55). Discriminant validity with a single question regarding being conservative was similarly excellent (r = -0.02). CONCLUSION: The OxSCanTr scale is a parsimonious, feasible, and valid PROM for the holistic assessment of the experience of patients who have undergone skin cancer treatment.

Evidence-Based Performance Measures for Reconstruction after Skin Cancer Resection: A Multidisciplinary Performance Measure Set.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Plastic Surgeons commissioned the multidisciplinary Performance Measure Development Work Group on Reconstruction after Skin Cancer Resection to identify and draft quality measures for the care of patients undergoing skin cancer reconstruction. Included stakeholders were the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery, the American College of Mohs Surgery, the American Society for Mohs Surgery, and a patient representative. METHODS: Two outcome measures and five process measures were identified. The outcome measures included the following: (1) patient satisfaction with information provided by their surgeon before their facial procedure, and (2) postprocedural urgent care or emergency room use. The process measures focus on antibiotic stewardship, anticoagulation continuation and/or coordination of care, opioid avoidance, and verification of clear margins. RESULTS: All measures in this report were approved by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Quality and Performance Measures Work Group and Executive Committee, and the stakeholder societies. CONCLUSION: The work group recommends the use of these measures for quality initiatives, Continuing Medical Education, Continuous Certification, Qualified Clinical Data Registry reporting, and national quality reporting programs.

The Oxford Needle Experience (ONE) scale: a UK-based and US-based online mixed-methods psychometric development and validation study of an instrument to assess needle fear, attitudes and expectations in the general public.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate the Oxford Needle Experience (ONE) scale, an instrument to assess needle fear, attitudes and expectations in the general population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional validation study. SETTING: Internet-based with participants in the UK and USA. PARTICIPANTS: UK and US representative samples stratified by age, sex, and ethnicity using the Prolific Academic platform. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Exploratory factor analysis with categorical variables and a polychoric correlation matrix followed by promax oblique rotation on the UK sample for the ONE scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic evaluating the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR) and comparative fit index (CFI) on the US sample. Reliability as internal consistency using McDonald's omega. Convergent validity using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Predictive and discriminant validity using logistic regression ORs of association (OR). RESULTS: The population included 1000 respondents, 500 in the UK and 500 in the USA. Minimum average partial correlation and a scree plot suggested four factors should be retained: injection hesitancy, blood-related hesitancy, recalled negative experiences and perceived benefits, yielding a 19-question scale. On CFA, the RMSEA was 0.070 (90% CI, 0.064 to 0.077), SRMR 0.053 and CFI 0.925. McDonald's omega was 0.92 and 0.93 in the UK and US samples, respectively. Convergent validity with the four-item Oxford Coronavirus Explanations, Attitudes and Narratives Survey (OCEANS) needle fear scale demonstrated a strong correlation (r=0.83). Predictive validity with a single-question COVID-19 vaccination status question demonstrated a strong association, OR (95% CI) 0.97 (0.96 to 0.98), p<0.0001 in the US sample. Discriminant validity with a question regarding the importance of controlling what enters the body confirmed the ONE score does not predict this unrelated outcome, OR 1.00 (0.99, 1.01), p=0.996 in the US sample. CONCLUSIONS: The ONE scale is a reliable and valid multidimensional scale that may be useful in predicting vaccine hesitancy, designing public health interventions to improve vaccine uptake and exploring alternatives to needles for medical procedures.