[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure.  Content Analysis of Individual PROM Questionnaires for Patients With Acne
Content Analysis of Individual PROM Questionnaires for Patients With Acne

Abbreviations: AcneQoL, Acne-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire; Acne-QOLI, Acne Quality of Life Index; AI-ADL, Acne Impact on Adult Daily Life; AQOL, Acne Quality of Life; ASIS, Acne Symptom and Impact Scale; CADI, Cardiff Acne Disability Index; CompAQ; DLQI, Dermatology Life Quality Index; EQ-5D, EuroQol 5 dimension; PROM, patient-reported outcome measures.

Table.  Domains, Subdomains, and Health Concepts of PROMs for Patients With Acnea
Domains, Subdomains, and Health Concepts of PROMs for Patients With Acnea
1.
Zaenglein  AL, Pathy  AL, Schlosser  BJ,  et al.  Guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris.   J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(5):945-73.e33. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.12.037 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Pattinson  RL, Trialonis-Suthakharan  N, Gupta  S,  et al.  Patient-reported outcome measures in dermatology: a systematic review.   Acta Derm Venereol. 2021;101(9):adv00559. doi:10.2340/00015555-3884 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Smith  H, Layton  AM, Thiboutot  D,  et al.  Identifying the impacts of acne and the use of questionnaires to detect these impacts: a systematic literature review.   Am J Clin Dermatol. 2021;22(2):159-171. doi:10.1007/s40257-020-00564-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Hopkins  ZH, Thiboutot  D, Homsi  HA,  et al.  Patient-reported outcome measures for health-related quality of life in patients with acne vulgaris: a systematic review of measure development and measurement properties.   JAMA Dermatol. Published online June 22, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.2260Google ScholarCrossref
5.
Abid  K, Algu  L, Kamran  R,  et al.  Content analysis of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients with nail conditions: a systematic review.   JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157(12):1509-1511. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.4539 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Fayed  N, Schiariti  V, Bostan  C, Cieza  A, Klassen  A.  Health status and QOL instruments used in childhood cancer research: deciphering conceptual content using World Health Organization definitions.   Qual Life Res. 2011;20(8):1247-1258. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9851-5 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
1 Comment for this article
EXPAND ALL
Opportunities for improvement in specific instruments for quality of life in patients with acne
Maria Luisa Peralta, MD., MSc. | Facultad de Medicina, Unidad de Estudios de posgrado, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Dear Authors: Yoon J, Homsi HA, Barbieri JS.
Quality of life is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as: "The individual's perception of their position in life within the cultural context and value system in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns.”[1] The term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) refers to aspects of self-perceived well-being that are related to or affected by the “presence of a disease or treatment” .[2]
In the investigation to which we refer, 11 HRQoL instruments were analyzed: one generic (allows comparison between diseases of different apparatus or
systems), 2 organ-specific (allows comparison between different skin diseases) and 8 disease-specific (acne).The researchers performed the search for instruments from systematic reviews, although the use of keywords and Boolean operators (eg validity and acne) or the standard search protocol curling offered by the COSMIN initiative can give a more comprehensive result. [3]
Content validity lies in the inclusion of items that exhaustively reflect the construct, but it also requires that the number of items evaluated for each domain be balanced. The level coding they implemented is a good idea in relation to item exhaustiveness. The study shows that the instruments mainly assess psychological and social well-being, so the rest of the domains are underrepresented. The superiority of DLQI and Skindex-16 compared to 5Q-50 is clear, since the first two focus on dermatological conditions, however, Skindex-16 shows a greater balance but not completeness, the DLQI covers more domains but does not it is balanced. [5] Considering instruments for acne, the AcneQol and the CompAQ are the most complete, although it is pertinent to consider the possibility of improving them so that they better reflect the construct.
To ensure understanding of the instrument from the instructions to the response alternatives, the best method is the cognitive interview. [4]

María Luisa Peralta-Pedrero MD, MSc., Agles Cruz Avelar MD.
Facultad de Medicina, Unidad de Estudios de posgrado, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
luisa.peraltap@gmail.com
aglesavelar@gmail.com

References.
1. The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med. 1995 Nov; 41(10):1403-9.
2. Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference? Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Jul;34(7):645-9.
3. Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A. C., Chiarotto, A., De Vet, H. C. W., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J.,Bouter, L. M., Mokkink, L. B. (2017). COSMIN standards and criteria for evaluating the content validity of health‐related Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res in press.
4. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, Ring L. Content validity--establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 2--assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011 Dec;14(8):978-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.013. Epub 2011 Oct 10. PMID: 22152166.
5. Yoon J, Homsi HA, Barbieri JS. Analysis of Content and Phrasing of Health-Related Quality-of-Life Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used in Patients With Acne. JAMA Dermatol. 2022 Sep 1;158(9):1072-1073. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.2293. PMID: 35793072; PMCID: PMC9260639.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
Research Letter
July 6, 2022

Analysis of Content and Phrasing of Health-Related Quality-of-Life Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used in Patients With Acne

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 2Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 3School of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158(9):1072-1073. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.2293

Acne is a common skin condition associated with considerable physical and psychological morbidities, including permanent scarring, social isolation, and depression.1 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent a valuable tool to capture the lived experience of persons with acne.2 To inform selection of PROMs used among patients with acne, the objectives of this study were to identify and describe the content captured by existing PROMs.

Methods

In this qualitative study, commonly used PROMs capturing health-related quality of life among patients with acne were identified through previous systematic reviews.3,4 For each PROM, the content of each item and the phrasing (positive [eg, “I like the way my skin looks”], negative [eg, “I don’t like the way my skin looks”], and neutral) were evaluated. Each item was assigned 3 levels of coding (domain, subdomain, and health concepts).5 The coding was informed by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. Coding was performed by 3 researchers (J.Y., H.A.H., J.S.B.) with iterative development of the codebook, which was repeated until all concepts were comprehensively described with intercoder consensus. Data collection and analysis were performed December 22, 2021, to March 6, 2022, using Microsoft Excel.

Results

Eight acne-specific, 2 dermatology-specific, and 1 generic PROM, including 213 items, were evaluated. Most items had negative phrasing (negative, 172 [80.8%]; neutral, 29 [13.6%]; positive, 12 [5.6%]), with 5 (2.3%) PROMs containing exclusively negative phrasing (Acne Quality of Life Index [Acne-QOLI], Acne Quality of Life [AQOL], Acne Impact on Adult Daily Life [AI-ADL], Cardiff Acne Disability Index, and Skindex-16).

Each item had a mean of 2.47 (median, 2) health concepts, with 70 unique health concepts across PROMs. These health concepts were organized into 19 subdomains with 5 overarching domains (physical well-being, psychological well-being, social well-being, treatment, and vitality) (Table). The most frequently captured domains were psychological well-being (128 [60.1%]), social well-being (46 [21.6%]), and physical well-being (33 [15.5%]). Treatment (5 [2.3%]) and vitality (1 [0.5%]) were infrequently captured; only the EuroQol 5 dimension included vitality.

Differences were observed in the relative domains included in each PROM, with the Acne-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, CompAQ, and Dermatology Life Quality Index most comprehensively covering the identified domains (Figure). Some PROMs, such as the Acne-Q (87.7% [64 of 73 items]), Acne-QOLI (85.7% [18 of 21 items]), and AI-ADL (78.6% [11 of 14 items]), had a relative emphasis on psychological well-being, whereas the AQOL (91.7% [11 of 12 items]) had a relative emphasis on social well-being.

Discussion

This qualitative study characterizes the content included in PROMs for patients with acne. Although many common themes were identified, notable differences existed between PROMs, which may alter PROM selection depending on clinical context. For instance, if the focus is on psychological well-being, the Acne-Q, Acne-QOLI, and AI-ADL may be most applicable, whereas if the focus is on social well-being, the AQOL may be most applicable. The Acne-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, CompAQ, and Dermatology Life Quality Index encompassed the broadest set of domains, which may be valuable in a general clinical setting.

Notably, these PROMs predominantly include negative phrasing. Although negative phrasing may help identify patient difficulties and concerns, it may adversely affect patients’ understanding of acne and themselves.6 Phrasing needs to be carefully considered during PROM development and selection. The qualitative design of this study has limitations, including challenges with classifying items covering multiple health concepts, which was mitigated through review of each item by multiple reviewers and iterative codebook development.

Patient-reported outcome measures provide valuable information to understand the lived experience of persons with acne, which can be used to measure what matters most to patients in clinical trials and to individualize treatment in clinical practice. This content analysis provides a framework to guide clinicians and researchers in selecting the PROM that is most relevant to their specific needs. Further studies need to investigate how phrasing and heterogeneity of PROM domains may impact the usefulness of PROMs for patients with acne.

Back to top
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: April 28, 2022.

Published Online: July 6, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.2293

Corresponding Author: John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 (jbarbieri@bwh.harvard.edu).

Author Contributions: Dr Barbieri had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Ms Yoon and Dr Homsi contributed equally to this work.

Concept and design: All authors.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: All authors.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Yoon, Homsi.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Homsi, Barbieri.

Supervision: Barbieri.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Disclaimer: Dr Barbieri is a reviewing editor of JAMA Dermatology. He was not involved in the editorial evaluation of or decision to accept this article for publication.

References
1.
Zaenglein  AL, Pathy  AL, Schlosser  BJ,  et al.  Guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris.   J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(5):945-73.e33. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.12.037 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Pattinson  RL, Trialonis-Suthakharan  N, Gupta  S,  et al.  Patient-reported outcome measures in dermatology: a systematic review.   Acta Derm Venereol. 2021;101(9):adv00559. doi:10.2340/00015555-3884 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Smith  H, Layton  AM, Thiboutot  D,  et al.  Identifying the impacts of acne and the use of questionnaires to detect these impacts: a systematic literature review.   Am J Clin Dermatol. 2021;22(2):159-171. doi:10.1007/s40257-020-00564-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Hopkins  ZH, Thiboutot  D, Homsi  HA,  et al.  Patient-reported outcome measures for health-related quality of life in patients with acne vulgaris: a systematic review of measure development and measurement properties.   JAMA Dermatol. Published online June 22, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.2260Google ScholarCrossref
5.
Abid  K, Algu  L, Kamran  R,  et al.  Content analysis of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients with nail conditions: a systematic review.   JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157(12):1509-1511. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.4539 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Fayed  N, Schiariti  V, Bostan  C, Cieza  A, Klassen  A.  Health status and QOL instruments used in childhood cancer research: deciphering conceptual content using World Health Organization definitions.   Qual Life Res. 2011;20(8):1247-1258. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9851-5 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×