Extending the Range of Measurement for Minimally Invasive Treatments by Adding New Concepts to FACE-Q Aesthetics Scales.

Background: The Satisfaction with Face Overall and Psychological Function scales are the most frequently used FACE-Q Aesthetics module scales. This study aimed to extend their range of measurement by adding and testing new concepts. We aimed to create FACE-Q Aesthetics item libraries. Methods: In-depth concept elicitation interviews were conducted. Concepts were formed into items and refined through multiple rounds of patient and expert input. The items were tested with people living in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom who had minimally invasive facial aesthetic treatments. Participants were recruited through an online platform (ie, Prolific). Psychometric properties were examined using Rasch measurement theory analysis, test-retest reliability, and construct validity. Results: We conducted 26 interviews. New concepts were developed into items and refined with input from 12 experts, 11 clinic patients, and 184 Prolific participants. A sample of 1369 Prolific participants completed 52 appearance and 22 psychological items. After removing 10 and 2 items respectively, the psychometric tests provided evidence of reliability with the person separation index, Cronbach alpha, and test-retest reliability values without extremes of 0.88 or more. For validity, lower scores were associated with looking older than one's age, being more bothered by facial skin laxity, treatment wearing off, and having deeper lines on Merz Assessment scales. Short-form scales formed from the 42 appearance items provide examples of item library application. Conclusions: This study provides an innovative means to customize scales to measure appearance and psychological function that maximizes content validity and minimizes respondent burden in the context of minimally invasive treatments.

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.

The SKIN-Q: An Innovative Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Evaluating Minimally Invasive Skin Treatments for the Face and Body.

Background: As the aesthetics field continues to innovate, it is important that outcomes are carefully evaluated. Objectives: To develop item libraries to measure how skin looks and feels from the patient perspective, that is, SKIN-Q. Methods: Concept elicitation interviews were conducted and data were used to draft the SKIN-Q, which was refined with patient and expert feedback. An online sample (i.e., Prolific) provided field-test data. Results: We conducted 26 qualitative interviews (88% women; 65% ≥ 40 years of age). A draft of the SKIN-Q item libraries were formed and revised with input from 12 experts, 11 patients, and 174 online participants who provided 180 survey responses. The psychometric sample of 657 participants (82% women; 36% aged ≥40 years) provided 713 completed surveys (facial, n = 595; body, n = 118). After removing 14 items, the psychometric analysis provided evidence of reliability (≥0.85) and validity for a 20-item set that measures how skin feels and a 46-item set that measures how skin looks. Short-form scales were tested to provide examples for how to utilize the item sets. Conclusion: The SKIN-Q represents an innovative way to measure satisfaction with skin (face and body) in the context of minimally invasive treatments.

Readability analysis and concept mapping of PROMs used for headache disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the readability and the comprehensiveness of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) utilized in primary headache disorders literature. BACKGROUND: As the health-care landscape has evolved toward a patient-centric model, numerous PROMs have been developed to capture treatment outcomes in patients with headache disorders. For these PROMs to advance our understanding of headache disorders and their treatment impact, they must be easy to understand (i.e., reading grade level 6 or less) and comprehensively capture what matters to patients with headache. The aim of this study was to (a) assess the readability of PROMs utilized in headache disorders literature, and (b) assess the comprehensiveness of PROMs by mapping their content to a health-related quality of life framework. METHODS: In this scoping review, recently published systematic reviews were used to identify PROMs used in primary headache disorders literature. Readability analysis was performed at the level of individual items and full PROM using established readability metrics. The content of the PROMs was mapped against a health-related quality-of-life framework by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: In total, 22 PROMs (15 headache disorders related, 7 generic) were included. The median reading grade level varied between 7.1 (interquartile range [IQR] 6.3-7.8) and 12.7 (IQR 11.8-13.2). None of the PROMs were below the recommended reading grade level for patient-facing material (grade 6). Three PROMs, the Migraine-Treatment Assessment Questionnaire, the Eurolight, and the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version, were between reading grade levels 7 and 8; the remaining 19 PROMs were above reading grade level 8. In total, the PROMs included 425 items. Most items (n = 134, 32%) assessed physical function (e.g., work, activities of daily living). The remaining items assessed physical symptoms (n = 127, 30%; e.g., pain, nausea), treatment effects on symptoms (n = 65, 15%; e.g., accompanying symptoms relief, headache relief), treatment impact (n = 56, 13%; e.g., function, side effects), psychological well-being (n = 41, 10%; e.g., anger, frustration), social well-being (n = 29, 7%; e.g., missing out on social activities, relationships), psychological impact (n = 14, 3%; e.g., feeling [not] in control, feeling like a burden), and sexual well-being (n = 3, 1%; e.g., sexual activity, sexual interest). Some of the items pertained to treatment (n = 27, 6%), of which most were about treatment type and use (n = 12, 3%; e.g., medication, botulinum toxin), treatment access (n = 10, 2%; e.g., health-care utilization, cost of medication), and treatment experience (n = 9, 2%; e.g., treatment satisfaction, confidence in treatment). CONCLUSION: The PROMs used in studies of headache disorders may be challenging for some patients to understand, leading to inaccurate or missing data. Furthermore, no available PROM comprehensively measures the health-related quality-of-life impact of headache disorders or their treatment, resulting in a limited understanding of patient-reported outcomes. The development of an easy-to-understand, comprehensive, and validated headache disorders-specific PROM is warranted.

Body Contouring Surgery after Bariatric Surgery Improves Long-term Health-related Quality of Life and Satisfaction with Appearance: An International Longitudinal Cohort Study Using the BODY-Q.

OBJECTIVE: To examine health-related quality of life (HRQL) and satisfaction with appearance in patients who have undergone bariatric surgery (BS) with or without subsequent body contouring surgery (BCS) in relation to the general population normative for the BODY-Q. BACKGROUND: The long-term impact of BS with or without BCS has not been established using rigorously developed and validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). The BODY-Q is a PROM developed to measure changes in HRQL and satisfaction with appearance in patients with BS and BCS. METHODS: Prospective BODY-Q data were collected from six European countries (Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Poland) from June 2015 to February 2022 in a cohort of patients who underwent BS. Mixed effects regression models were used to analyze changes in HRQL and appearance over time between patients who did and did not receive BCS and to examine the impact of patient-level covariates on outcomes. RESULTS: This study included 24,604 assessments from 5,620 patients. BS initially led to improved HRQL and appearance scores throughout the first post-bariatric year, followed by a gradual decrease. Patients who underwent subsequent BCS after BS experienced a sustained improvement in HRQL and appearance or remained relatively stable for up to 10-years postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent BCS maintained the improvement in HRQL and satisfaction with appearance in contrast to patients who only underwent BS, who reported a decline in scores 1-2 years postoperatively. Our results emphasize the pivotal role that BCS plays in the completion of the weight loss trajectory.

"I Want to Look Natural": Development and Validation of the FACE-Q Aesthetics Natural Module.

BACKGROUND: The concept of natural after a facial aesthetic treatment represents an under-studied area. We added scales to FACE-Q Aesthetics to provide a means to measure this concept from the patient's perspective. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate FACE-Q natural scales. METHODS: Concept elicitation interviews with people having minimally invasive treatments were conducted to explore the natural concept and develop scales. Patient and expert input was used to refine scale content. An online sample (i.e., Prolific) of people who had a facial aesthetic treatment to examine psychometric properties using Rasch Measurement Theory analysis. A test-retest reliability study was performed, and construct validity examined. RESULTS: Interviews with 26 people were conducted. Three scales were developed and refined with input from 12 experts, 11 patients, and 184 online survey participants. Data from 1358 online participants provided evidence of scale reliability and validity. Reliability was high with Person Separation Index, Cronbach alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients values without extremes >0.82. Tests of construct validity confirmed that the scales functioned as hypothesized. Higher scores on the Expectations scale were associated with wanting a more natural look and movement after treatment. In addition, higher scores on the Natural Appearance and Natural Outcome scales correlated with better scores on other FACE-Q Aesthetics scales, and were associated with the face looking and feeling natural. CONCLUSIONS: Many people seeking facial aesthetic treatments want to look natural. These new FACE-Q Aesthetics scales provide a means to measure the concept of 'natural' from the patient's perspective.

The LIMB-Q: Reliability and Validity of a Novel Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Lower Extremity Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: The LIMB-Q is a novel patient-reported outcome measure for lower extremity trauma patients. The aim of this study was to perform a psychometric validation of the LIMB-Q based on the Rasch Measurement Theory. METHODS: An international, multi-site convenience sample of patients with lower extremity traumatic injuries distal to the mid-femur were recruited via clinical sites (United States, Netherlands) and online platforms (English; Trauma Survivors Network, Prolific). A cross-sectional survey of the LIMB-Q was conducted with test-rest (TRT) measured 1-2 weeks after initial completion in a sub-group of patients. RESULTS: The LIMB-Q was field-tested in 713 patients. The mean age was 41 years (standard deviation (SD) 17, range 18-85), mean time from injury was 7 years (SD 9, range 0-58), and there were variable injury and treatment characteristics (39% fracture surgery only, 38% flap or graft, 13% amputation, 10% amputation and flap/graft). Out of 382 items tested, 164 were retained across 16 scales. Reliability was demonstrated with person separation index values 0.80 and greater in 14 scales (0.78-0.79 in remaining 2 scales), Cronbach alpha values 0.83 and greater, and intraclass correlation coefficient values 0.70 and greater. Each scale was unidimensional, measurement invariance was confirmed across clinical and demographic factors, TRT showed adequate reliability, and construct validity was demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: The LIMB-Q is a patient reported outcome measure with 16 independently functioning scales (6-15 items per scale) developed and validated specifically for lower extremity trauma patients with fractures, reconstruction, and/or amputation.

Identifying health-related quality of life concepts to inform the development of the WOUND-Q.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of hard-to-heal wounds extends beyond traditional clinical metrics, negatively affecting a patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Yet treatment outcomes are seldom measured from the patient's perspective. The purpose of the present study was to perform in-depth qualitative interviews with patients diagnosed with varying types of hard-to-heal wounds to identify outcomes important to them. METHOD: Participants were recruited from wound care clinics in Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and the US, and were included if they had a hard-to-heal wound (i.e., lasting ≥3 months), were aged ≥18 years, and fluent in English, Dutch or Danish. Qualitative interviews took place between January 2016 and March 2017. An interpretive description qualitative approach guided the data analysis. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded line-by-line. Codes were categorised into top-level domains and themes that formed the final conceptual framework. RESULTS: We performed 60 in-depth interviews with patients with a range of wound types in different anatomic locations that had lasted from three months to 25 years. Participants described outcomes that related to three top-level domains and 13 major themes: wound (characteristics, healing); HRQoL (physical, psychological, social); and treatment (cleaning, compression stocking, debridement, dressing, hyperbaric oxygen, medication, suction device, surgery). CONCLUSION: The conceptual framework developed as part of this study represents the outcome domains that mattered the most to the patients with hard-to-heal wounds. Interview quotes were used to generate items that formed the WOUND-Q scales, a patient-reported outcome measure for patients with hard-to-heal wounds.

Most Efficient and Meaningful Patient-Reported Appearance Assessment in Different Cleft Types and Age Groups with CLEFT-Q.

BACKGROUND: The CLEFT-Q, a questionnaire developed and validated specifically for cleft patients, contains seven appearance scales. The International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) has incorporated only some CLEFT-Q appearance scales in the Standard Set to minimize burden. This study evaluates which appearance scales provide the most meaningful information in the different cleft types at specific ages, for the most efficient cleft appearance outcome assessment. METHODS: Within this international multicenter study, outcomes of the seven appearance scales were collected, either as part of the ICHOM Standard Set, or as part of the field test study performed to validate the CLEFT-Q. Analyses were performed in separate age groups and cleft types, and involved univariate regression analyses, trend analyses, t tests, correlations, and floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: A total of 3116 patients were included. Scores for most appearance scales showed a downward trend by age group, with the exception of the Teeth and Jaw scales. In all cleft types, several scales correlated strongly with each other. No floor effects were observed, but ceiling effects were found in several scales in different age groups, most often in the CLEFT-Q Jaw scale. CONCLUSIONS: A proposition for the most meaningful and efficient appearance outcome assessment in cleft patients is made. It was composed so that recommendations are of value for different cleft protocols and initiatives. Suggestions for the use of scales in the ICHOM Standard Set at different ages are given, and also from a clinical perspective. Use of the CLEFT-Q Scar, Lips, and Nose scales will provide additional relevant information.

Further psychometric validation and test-retest reproducibility of the WOUND-Q.

WOUND-Q is a condition-specific patient-reported outcome measure developed for all types of chronic wounds, located anywhere on the body. To establish reliability and validity of a patient-reported outcome measure, multiple pieces of evidence are required. The purpose of this study was to examine the measurement properties of 9 of the 13 WOUND-Q scales and perform a test-retest reproducibility study in an international sample. In August 2022, we invited members of an international online community (Prolific.com) with any type of chronic wound to complete a survey containing the WOUND-Q scales, the Wound-QoL and EQ-5D. A test-retest survey was performed 7 days after the first survey. It was possible to examine the reliability and validity of eight of the nine WOUND-Q scales by Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT). To examine test-retest reproducibility intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), the standard error of the measurement and the smallest detectable change were calculated. In total, 421 patients from 22 different countries with 11 different types of chronic wounds took part in this study. Our analyses provided further evidence of the reliability and validity of the scales measuring wound characteristics (assessment, drainage, smell), health-related quality of life (life impact, psychological, sleep, social) and wound treatment (dressing).

Development and Validation of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Fingernail and Toenail Conditions: The NAIL-Q.

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are needed to measure outcomes that matter to people with nail conditions, from their perspective. Objective: To design a comprehensive new PROM (NAIL-Q) to measure outcomes important in toenail and fingernail conditions. Methods: A mixed methods iterative approach was used. Phase 1 involved concept elicitation interviews that were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded line-by-line. Concepts were developed into scales and refined through cognitive debriefing interviews with patients and expert input. Data was then collected from an international sample using a crowdsource platform. Eligible participants were aged ≥18 years with a nail condition for at least 3 months. Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) analysis was used to examine item and scale performance. Other psychometric tests included test-retest reliability, and convergent and construct validity. Results: Phase 1 interviews involved 23 patients with 10 nail conditions and input from 11 dermatologists. The analysis led to the development of 84 items for field-testing. In Phase 2, 555 participants completed the survey. Toenail conditions (n = 441) were more common than fingernail conditions (n = 186). The RMT analysis reduced the number of items tested to 45 in 7 scales measuring nail appearance, health-related quality of life concerns, and treatment outcomes. All items had ordered thresholds and nonsignificant chi-square p values. Reliability statistics with and without extremes for the Person Separation Index were ≥0.79 and Cronbach's alpha were ≥0.83, and for intraclass correlation coefficients were ≥0.81. Construct validity was further supported in that most participants agreed that the NAIL-Q was easy to understand, asked relevant and important questions in a respectful way, and that it should be used to inform clinical care. Conclusion: The NAIL-Q is a rigorously designed and tested PROM that measures nail appearance, health-related quality of life and treatment outcomes. This PROM can be used in clinical practice to inform patient care and to include the patient perspective in research.

Determining Construct Validity of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Birthmarks on the Face and Body.

Background: The FACE-Q Craniofacial module includes a scale that measures how bothered an individual is by the appearance of a birthmark on the face or body. Objective: To determine if the Birthmark scale measuring appearance of the birthmark has evidence of construct validity among children and young adults, aged 8-29 years old, with a birthmark on the face or body. Methods: Participants were recruited as part of the field test of the FACE-Q Craniofacial module. Construct validity of the Birthmark scale was examined using a priori hypotheses testing. Results: Two hundred seventy participants were included, who were predominantly female (60.4%) and had a facial birthmark (71.5%). The Birthmark scale correlated (p ≤ 0.01) with scale scores for Face, Appearance Distress, Psychological, School, and Social. Scores for participants with more "noticeable" birthmarks were (p ≤ 0.01) associated with worse Birthmark scale scores. Conclusion: The findings support that the Birthmark scale can be used to measure the patient's perspective of the appearance of their birthmark, providing a means for clinicians to incorporate the patient's view in shared decision-making and research.

BODY-Q Normative Scores: Psychometric Validation of the BODY-Q in the General Population in Europe and North America.

Background: BODY-Q is a rigorously developed patient-reported outcome measure designed to measure outcomes of weight loss and body contouring patients. To allow interpretation and comparison of BODY-Q scores across studies, normative BODY-Q values were generated from the general population. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of BODY-Q in the normative population. Methods: Data were collected using two crowdsourcing platforms (Prolific and Amazon Mechanical Turk) in 12 European and North American countries. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) was used to examine reliability and validity of BODY-Q scales. Results: RMT analysis supported the psychometric properties of BODY-Q in the normative sample with ordered thresholds in all items and nonsignificant chi-square values for 167 of 176 items. Reliability was high with person separation index of greater than or equal to 0.70 in 20 of 22 scales and Cronbach alpha values of greater than or equal to 0.90 in 17 of 22 scales. Mean scale scores measuring appearance, health-related quality of life, and eating-related concerns scales varied as predicted across subgroups with higher scores reported by participants who were more satisfied with their weight. Analysis to explore differential item functioning by sample (normative versus field-test) flagged some potential issues, but subsequent comparison of adjusted and unadjusted person estimates provided evidence that the scoring algorithm worked equivalently for the normative sample as in the field-test samples. Conclusions: The BODY-Q scales showed acceptable reliability and validity in the normative sample. The normative values can be used as reference in research and clinical practice in combination with local estimates for parallel analysis and comparison.

Comparing the suitability of virtual versus in-person care: Perceptions from pediatricians.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic compelled a portion of healthcare to be delivered virtually. As the pandemic waned, health systems strived to find a balance between re-incorporating in-person care while maintaining virtual care. To find when virtual or in-person encounters are more appropriate, we surveyed pediatricians' perceptions when comparing the suitability of virtual care to in-person care. METHODS: We surveyed a Canadian tertiary-level pediatric hospital where pediatricians assessed whether specific clinical encounters or tasks were more or less effective virtually than when performed in person. Pediatricians also rated the importance of clinical and patient factors when deciding if a patient needs to be seen in person. RESULTS: Of 160 pediatrics faculty members, 56 (35%) responded to the survey. When assessing different types of clinical encounters, triage, multidisciplinary meetings, discharge, and follow ups were more likely to favor virtual encounters. However, first consultations and family meetings were more likely to favor in-person encounters. Regarding clinical tasks, pediatricians were more likely to endorse explaining test results, offering treatment recommendations, and obtaining patient histories virtually. On the contrary, there was a preference for physical examinations, assessing patients visually, and assessing developmental milestones to be performed in person. When deciding if a patient should be seen in person versus virtual, pediatricians rated the patient's condition and communication barriers as the most important factors favoring an in-person appointment. DISCUSSION: These results offer an initial framework for pediatricians when choosing which encounter type may be most appropriate for their patients between virtual or in-person appointments.

Ensuring patient centeredness in upper extremity lymphedema research: Identifying patient-prioritized agenda and preferences.

PURPOSE: To elicit a patient-prioritized agenda and preferences for upper extremity lymphedema (LE) research. METHODS: Focus group sessions (FGs) were conducted with English-speaking, adult women (18 years and older) with breast cancer-related LE (BCRL) seeking conservative or surgical care at two tertiary cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. An interview guide was used; women were asked to describe health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes that mattered the most to them, followed by their preferences for research study design and for providing patient-reported outcomes measure (PROM) data. Inductive content analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes. RESULTS: A total of 16 women participated in 4 FG sessions (55 ± 9.5 years) and described the impact of LE on their appearance, physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being. Women emphasized that psychosocial well-being was often not discussed in clinical care and that they were poorly informed of LE risk and care options. Most women said that they would not be willing to be randomized to surgical versus conservative management of LE. They also expressed a preference to complete PROM data electronically. All women emphasized the value of having an open text option alongside PROMs to expand on their concerns. CONCLUSION: Patient centeredness is key to generating meaningful data and ensuring ongoing engagement in clinical research. In LE, comprehensive PROMs that measure a range of HRQL concerns, especially psychosocial well-being, should be considered. Women with BCRL are reluctant to be randomized to conservative care when a surgical option is available, resulting in implications for planning trial sample size and recruitment.

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 Content Validity of a Novel Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Total Laryngectomy: The LARY-Q.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a patient-reported outcomes measure (PROM) for total laryngectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of patients with total laryngectomy, followed by cognitive debriefing interviews with patients and expert feedback. METHODS: Concept elicitation was performed using in-depth qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of patients who had undergone total laryngectomy. Patients were recruited from head and neck surgery and speech-language pathology clinics as well as via laryngectomy support groups. Interviews were conducted, recorded, transcribed, and coded, resulting in a conceptual framework and item pool. Using the item pool, preliminary scales were drafted. The scales were revised iteratively over 5 rounds using feedback from cognitive interviews with patients and multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary expert feedback. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients with total laryngectomy (mean age 68 years, range 57-79) were interviewed resulting in 1555 codes. The codes were used to form a conceptual framework grouped into top-level domains of stoma, function, health-related quality of life, devices, and experience of care. Items were used to form 15 preliminary scales that were revised over five rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 9 patients) and expert feedback (n = 17 experts). The field-test version of the LARY-Q has 18 scales and 277 items in total. CONCLUSIONS: The LARY-Q is a novel PROM designed to assess outcomes associated with total laryngectomy. The next step involves a field test study with a heterogenous sample of patients to assess the psychometric properties of the LARY-Q and perform item reduction.

Re-examining content validity of the BREAST-Q more than a decade later to determine relevance and comprehensiveness.

PURPOSE: The BREAST-Q is the most used patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in breast cancer surgery. The purposes of this study were to re-examine the content validity of BREAST-Q cancer modules (mastectomy, lumpectomy and reconstruction) and to determine the need for new scales. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with women with breast cancer (Stage 0-4, any treatment), and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive (based on original BREAST-Q conceptual framework) and inductive (new codes from the data) content analysis approaches were used to analyze the data. The number of codes that mapped to BREAST-Q were recorded. RESULTS: Dataset included 3948 codes from 58 participants. Most of the breast (n = 659, 96%) and all psychosocial (n = 127, 100%), sexual (n = 179, 100%) and radiation-related (n = 79, 100%) codes mapped to BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breast, Psychosocial Wellbeing, Sexual Wellbeing and Adverse Effects of Radiation scales, respectively. For the physical wellbeing codes (n = 939) for breast/chest and arm, 34% (n = 321) mapped to the Physical Wellbeing-Chest scale. Most of the abdomen codes (n = 311) mapped to Satisfaction with Abdomen (n = 90, 76%) and Physical Wellbeing-Abdomen (n = 171, 89%) scales. Codes that did not map (n = 697, 30%) covered breast sensation and lymphedema. Concerns related to fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were most reported and did not map to BREAST-Q. CONCLUSION: The BREAST-Q, which was developed using extensive patient input more than a decade ago, is still relevant. To ensure the BREAST-Q remains comprehensive, new scales for upper extremity lymphedema, breast sensation, fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were developed.

Health state utility values in patients undergoing chest masculinization surgery.

BACKGROUND: Chest masculinization surgery is the most common gender-affirming procedure performed in transgender and gender-diverse individuals. While evidence on the health-related quality of life (HRQL) impact of chest masculinization is starting to emerge, data on health state utility values (HSUVs) associated with the surgery is largely missing. The objectives of this study were to estimate the HSUVs using EQ-5D for patients seeking chest masculinization surgery and assess the determinants of EQ-5D score at 6 months postoperatively. METHODS: Patients seeking chest masculinization at a single community plastic surgery clinic by 2 surgeons completed 3 patient-reported outcome measures - EQ-5D-3L, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9, and BODY-Q Chest module - preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks and 6-months. Friedman test was used to assess the differences in PROM scores at the 3 timepoints. Simple and backward stepwise regression analyses of 6-month postoperative EQ-5D scores were performed. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients (mean [SD] age, 25.7 [6.9] years) were included. The mean [SD] EQ-5D scores at preoperative, postoperative 6 weeks and 6 months were 0.81 [0.15], 0.84 [0.15] and 0.87 [0.12], respectively. Postoperatively, problems were most frequently reported in the dimensions "pain/discomfort" and "anxiety/depression". Preoperative PHQ-9 score was a predictor of 6-month postoperative EQ-5D scores following simple (p < 0.01) and backward stepwise linear regression analysis (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Chest masculinization was associated with an improvement in overall HRL at 6 months postoperatively; however, this did not achieve statistical significance. Preoperative depression severity was a significant determinant of postoperative HRL. Consequently, additional support must be offered to patients who have a higher level of preoperative depression.

Body Contouring Surgery Improves Long-Term Satisfaction with Appearance and Health-Related Quality of Life after Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes are crucial in bariatric surgery (BaS) and body contouring surgery (BC) because patients' goals include improvement in appearance and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). The BODY-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure developed to measure change in satisfaction with appearance and HR-QOL in BaS and BC patients. The aim of this study was to examine BODY-Q scores over the entire weight loss journey, and to investigate the impact of BC after BaS. METHODS: Patients completed the BODY-Q before and after BaS and BC at four hospital departments in Denmark between 2015 and 2019. Cross-sectional scores were analyzed by phase of weight loss journey using one-way analysis of variance. Scores for patients who provided longitudinal assessments were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance and paired t test. The impact of BC was examined over time after BaS, using an independent t test from before BaS through more than 7 years after BaS. RESULTS: The study included 1527 patients who provided 2285 BODY-Q assessments. The cross-sectional analysis by phase of weight loss journey showed higher scores after BaS, lower scores before BC, and highest-level scores after BC. The longitudinal analysis showed higher postoperative mean scores compared with preoperative scores for both BaS and BC. The analysis over time after BaS revealed lower mean scores in patients who did not receive BC. CONCLUSION: The authors' results provide evidence of the positive impact of BaS and BC on patients' lives and emphasize the importance of considering BC to finalize the weight loss journey, as it helps to maintain improvements in appearance and HR-QOL. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.