Advertisement

The Patient-Reported Outcome Measures In Skin Cancer Reconstruction (PROMISCR) study: Anglicisation and initial validation of the FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module in a UK cohort

  • Thomas D. Dobbs
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author at: Reconstructive Surgery & Regenerative Medicine Research Group, Institute Of Life Sciences, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
    Affiliations
    Reconstructive Surgery & Regenerative Medicine Research Group, Institute Of Life Sciences, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK

    Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastics, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK
    Search for articles by this author
  • Maarten Ottenhof
    Affiliations
    Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands

    Patient-Reported Outcomes, Value and Experience (PROVE) Centre, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • John A.G. Gibson
    Affiliations
    Reconstructive Surgery & Regenerative Medicine Research Group, Institute Of Life Sciences, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK

    Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastics, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK
    Search for articles by this author
  • Iain S. Whitaker
    Affiliations
    Reconstructive Surgery & Regenerative Medicine Research Group, Institute Of Life Sciences, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK

    Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastics, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK
    Search for articles by this author
  • Hayley A. Hutchings
    Affiliations
    Health Services Research, Patient & Population Health & Informatics Research Group, Institute of Life Sciences 2, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK
    Search for articles by this author
Published:October 09, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2020.09.005

      Summary

      Facial skin cancer is common, and its treatment affects patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL), as demonstrated by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). In this study, we anglicise and validate the novel FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module for the UK population.
      Anglicisation of the FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module followed international guidance for cross-cultural adaptation. Cognitive interviews were performed, producing a reconciled and harmonised version for validation. Patients undergoing facial skin cancer excision were prospectively recruited and asked to complete the anglicised FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module, along with the Skin Cancer Index (SCI) and European Quality of Life-Five Dimensions (ED-5D) questionnaire, pre-operatively and 6–8 weeks post-operatively. Data were analysed using classical test theory. Ethical approval was obtained (REC: 16/WM/0445).
      One hundred and ten patients were recruited between August 2017 and July 2018. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.867–0.967). All subscales had a single-factor solution using principal component analysis. Construct validity, as measured between the FACE-Q subscales and SCI subscales, was good, with >75% of a priori predictions confirmed. Pearson's r for item–total correlation was >0.80 for several items, and significant ceiling effects are shown in 7 of the 10 subscales, suggesting some item redundancy.
      The UK version of this well-designed PROM demonstrates good face and construct validity. There is however a degree of redundancy within the scales, and further work using Rasch analysis on a larger sample will help address this.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Geller A.C.
        • Annas G.D.
        Epidemiology of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer.
        Seminars in oncology nursing. 19. W.B. Saunders, 2003: 2-11
        • Franceschi S.
        • Levi F.
        • Randimbison L.
        • La Vecchia C
        Site distribution of different types of skin cancer: new aetiological clues.
        Int J Cancer. 1996; 67 (Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company): 24-28
      1. Cancer research UK statistics. 2016;:1–1. Available from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/skin-cancer/incidence.

        • Weinstock M.A.
        • Bogaars H.A.
        • Ashley M.
        • Litle V.
        • Bilodeau E.
        • Kimmel S
        Nonmelanoma skin cancer mortality. A population-based study.
        Arch Dermatol. 1991; 127: 1194-1197
        • Körner A.
        • Garland R.
        • Czajkowska Z.
        • Coroiu A.
        • Khanna M
        Supportive care needs and distress in patients with non-melanoma skin cancer: nothing to worry about?.
        Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2016; 20 (Elsevier): 150-155
        • Sobanko J.F.
        • Sarwer D.B.
        • Zvargulis Z.
        • Miller C.J
        Importance of physical appearance in patients with skin cancer.
        Dermatol Surg. 2015; 41: 183-188
        • McGrail K.
        • Bryan S.
        • Davis J
        Let's all go to the PROM: the case for routine patient-reported outcome measurement in Canadian healthcare.
        Healthc Pap. 2011; 11: 8-18
        • Devlin N.J.
        • Appleby J.
        Getting the most out of PROMS.
        Putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision-making. The Kings Fund, London2010
        • Dobbs T.D.
        • Samarendra H.
        • Hughes S.
        • Hutchings H.A.
        • Whitaker I
        Patient-reported outcome measures for facial skin cancer: a systematic review and evaluation of the quality of their measurement properties.
        Br J Dermatol. 2019; 180 (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111)): 1018-1029
        • Lee E.H.
        • Klassen A.F.
        • Cano S.J.
        • Nehal K.S.
        • Pusic A.L
        FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module for measuring patient-reported outcomes following facial skin cancer surgery.
        BJD. 2018; 179: 88-94
      2. Administration F.A.D. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist; 2009.

      3. European Medicines Agency (EMA), Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2018 May 25]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003637.

        • Dobbs T.
        • Hutchings H.A.
        • Whitaker I.S
        UK-based prospective cohort study to anglicise and validate the FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module in patients with facial skin cancer undergoing surgical reconstruction: the PROMISCR (Patient-Reported Outcome Measure in Skin Cancer Reconstruction) study.
        BMJ Open. 2017; 7 (British Medical Journal Publishing Group)e016182
        • Epstein J.
        • Santo R.M.
        • Guillemin F
        A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68 (Elsevier): 435-441
        • Wild D.
        • Grove A.
        • Martin M.
        • et al.
        Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation.
        Value Health. 2005; 8: 94-104
        • Coons S.J.
        • Kothari S.
        • Monz B.U.
        • Burke L.B
        The Patient‐Reported Outcome (PRO) consortium: filling measurement gaps for PRO end points to support labeling claims.
        Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 90 (Wiley-Blackwell): 743-748
        • Hayes R.P.
        • Blum S.I.
        • Gordon M.F.
        • et al.
        The Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) consortium: lessons learned along the path to PRO instrument qualification.
        Therapeutic Innov Regul Sci. 2014 Sep 14; 49 (SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA): 132-138
        • Eremenco S.
        • Pease S.
        • Mann S.
        • Berry P.
        • on behalf of PRO Consortium's Process Subcommittee
        Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) consortium translation process: consensus development of updated best practices.
        J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017; 2 (Nature Publishing Group): 1-11
        • Guillemin F.
        • Bombardier C.
        • Beaton D
        Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines.
        J Clin Epidemio. 1993; 46 (Elsevier): 1417-1432
        • Rhee J.S.
        • Matthews B.A.
        • Neuburg M.
        • Buyzynski M.
        • Nattinger A.B
        Creation of a quality of life instrument for nonmelanoma skin cancer patients.
        Laryngoscope. 2005; 115 (Wiley-Blackwell): 1178-1185
        • EuroQol Group
        EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life.
        Health Policy. 1990; 16: 199-208
        • Streiner D.L.
        • Norman G.R.
        • Cairney J
        Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use.
        5th ed. Oxford University Press, 2015
        • Terwee C.B.
        • Bot S.D.M.
        • de Boer M.R.
        • et al.
        Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 34-42
        • Li T.
        • Hutfless S.
        • Scharfstein D.O.
        • et al.
        Standards should be applied in the prevention and handling of missing data for patient-centered outcomes research: a systematic review and expert consensus.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67: 15-32
        • Aaronson N.
        • Alonso J.
        • Burnam A.
        • et al.
        Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria.
        Qual Life Res. 2002; 11: 193-205
        • Dobbs T.
        • Hughes S.
        • Mowbray N.
        • Hutchings H.A.
        • Whitaker I.S
        How to decide which patient-reported outcome measure to use? A practical guide for plastic surgeons.
        J Plast, Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018; 71: 957-966
        • Wormald J.C.R.
        • Rodrigues J.N.
        Outcome measurement in plastic surgery.
        J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018; 71: 283-289
        • Kline P.
        A handbook of test construction.
        Introduction to psychometric design. Routledge, 2015
        • Tabachnick B.G.
        • Fidell L.S
        Using multivariate statistics.
        5 ed. Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education, Boston, MA2007
        • Kaiser H.F.
        An index of factorial simplicity.
        Psychometrika. 1974; 39 (Springer-Verlag): 31-36
        • Horn J.L.
        A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.
        Psychometrika. 1965; 30 (Springer-Verlag): 179-185
        • Cohen J.
        Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
        2nd ed. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ1988
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Deyo R.A.
        • Charlson M.
        • Levine M.N.
        • Mitchell A
        Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1989; 42: 403-408
        • Snyder C.F.
        • Watson M.E.
        • Jackson J.D.
        • Cella D.
        • Halyard M.Y.
        • the Mayo/FDA patient-reported outcomes consensus meeting group
        Patient-reported outcome instrument selection: designing a measurement strategy.
        Value Health. 2007; 10: S76-S85
        • Kam C.C.S.
        • Zhou M
        Does acquiescence affect individual items consistently? Educational and psychological measurement. 75. SAGE PublicationsSage CA, Los Angeles, CA2015 Oct 1: 764-784
        • Petrillo J.
        • Cano S.J.
        • McLeod L.D.
        • Coon C.D
        Using Classical test theory, item response theory, and rasch measurement theory to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures: a comparison of worked examples.
        Value Health. 2015; 18 (Elsevier): 25-34
        • Baylor C.
        • Hula W.
        • Donovan N.J.
        • Doyle P.J.
        • Kendall D.
        • Yorkston K
        An introduction to item response theory and rasch models for speech-language pathologists.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2011 Aug 1; 20 (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association): 243-259
        • Mokkink L.B.
        • Terwee C.B.
        • Patrick D.L.
        • et al.
        The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study.
        Qual Life Res. 2010; 19 (Springer Netherlands): 539-549
        • Mokkink L.B.
        • de Vet H.C.W.
        • Prinsen C.A.C.
        • et al.
        COSMIN Risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures.
        Qual Life Res. 2018 May 1; 27 (Springer International Publishing): 1171-1179
        • Prinsen C.A.C.
        • Mokkink L.B.
        • Bouter L.M.
        • et al.
        COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures.
        Qual Life Res. 2018; 27 (Springer International Publishing): 1147-1157
        • Beaton D.E.
        • Bombardier C.
        • Guillemin F.
        • Ferraz M.B
        Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 3186-3191