Vitiligo Treatment Impact score (VITs): development and validation of a vitiligo burden of treatment questionnaire using the ComPaRe Vitiligo e-cohort.
Journal
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV
ISSN: 1468-3083
Titre abrégé: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9216037
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
13
05
2021
accepted:
30
09
2021
pubmed:
18
10
2021
medline:
19
1
2022
entrez:
17
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Vitiligo management is challenging and requires long-term adherence of patients who often complain of the burden associated with treatment. To develop and validate a patient reported measurement of the burden of treatment in vitiligo. The study was nested within the ComPaRe Vitiligo e-cohort, an online e-cohort of vitiligo patients in France. Items were derived from a literature review and from the qualitative analysis of a survey using open-ended questions of 204 patients with Vitiligo. Construct validity of the resulting instrument was assessed by comparing the instrument's score to the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Vitiligo Impact Patient score (VIPs) and Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) scores. Reliability was assessed by test-retest with 15 ± 10 days of interval between both assessments. In total, 343 adult participants participated in the validation of the Vitiligo Treatment Impact score (VITs). The VITs is a 19-item questionnaire assessing the burden of treatment in patients with vitiligo with results suggesting four domains ('Finding a doctor', 'Phototherapy', 'Topical treatment' and 'Impact on outdoor activities and photoprotection'). The VITs total score was well correlated with the DLQI, VIP and TBQ scores. Agreement between test and retest was good (ICC 0.705, 95% CI 0.491-0.818). We developed a patient reported measurement of the burden of treatment in vitiligo with good psychometric properties.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Vitiligo management is challenging and requires long-term adherence of patients who often complain of the burden associated with treatment.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To develop and validate a patient reported measurement of the burden of treatment in vitiligo.
METHODS
METHODS
The study was nested within the ComPaRe Vitiligo e-cohort, an online e-cohort of vitiligo patients in France. Items were derived from a literature review and from the qualitative analysis of a survey using open-ended questions of 204 patients with Vitiligo. Construct validity of the resulting instrument was assessed by comparing the instrument's score to the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Vitiligo Impact Patient score (VIPs) and Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) scores. Reliability was assessed by test-retest with 15 ± 10 days of interval between both assessments.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 343 adult participants participated in the validation of the Vitiligo Treatment Impact score (VITs). The VITs is a 19-item questionnaire assessing the burden of treatment in patients with vitiligo with results suggesting four domains ('Finding a doctor', 'Phototherapy', 'Topical treatment' and 'Impact on outdoor activities and photoprotection'). The VITs total score was well correlated with the DLQI, VIP and TBQ scores. Agreement between test and retest was good (ICC 0.705, 95% CI 0.491-0.818).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We developed a patient reported measurement of the burden of treatment in vitiligo with good psychometric properties.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
279-285Subventions
Organisme : European Academy of dermatology and venereology
ID : PPRC-2018-46
Informations de copyright
© 2021 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Références
Alkhateeb A, Fain PR, Thody A, Bennett DC, Spritz RA. Epidemiology of vitiligo and associated autoimmune diseases in Caucasian probands and their families. Pigment Cell Res 2003; 16: 208-214.
Elbuluk N, Ezzedine K. Quality of life, burden of disease, co-morbidities, and systemic effects in vitiligo patients. Dermatol Clin 2017; 35: 117-128.
Taïeb A, Picardo M, Members VETF. The definition and assessment of vitiligo: a consensus report of the Vitiligo European Task Force. Pigment Cell Res 2007; 20: 27-35.
Oiso N, Suzuki T, Wataya-kaneda M et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of vitiligo in Japan. J Dermatol 2013; 40: 344-354.
Gawkrodger DJ, Ormerod AD, Shaw L et al. Guideline for the diagnosis and management of vitiligo. Br J Dermatol 2008; 159: 1051-1076.
Rodrigues M, Ezzedine K, Hamzavi I, Pandya AG, Harris JE, Vitiligo Working Group. Current and emerging treatments for vitiligo. J Am Acad Dermatol 2017; 77: 17-29.
Ezzedine K, Whitton M, Pinart M. Interventions for Vitiligo. JAMA 2016; 316: 1708-1709.
Ezzedine K, Grimes PE, Meurant J-M et al. Living with vitiligo: results from a national survey indicate differences between skin phototypes. Br J Dermatol 2015; 173: 607-609.
Tran V-T, Barnes C, Montori VM, Falissard B, Ravaud P. Taxonomy of the burden of treatment: a multi-country web-based qualitative study of patients with chronic conditions. BMC Med 2015; 13: 115.
Sav A, King MA, Whitty JA et al. Burden of treatment for chronic illness: a concept analysis and review of the literature. Health Expect 2015; 18: 312-324.
Dobler CC, Harb N, Maguire CA, Armour CL, Coleman C, Murad MH. Treatment burden should be included in clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 2018; 363: k4065.
Bohlen K, Scoville E, Shippee ND, May CR, Montori VM. Overwhelmed patients: a videographic analysis of how patients with type 2 diabetes and clinicians articulate and address treatment burden during clinical encounters. Diabetes Care 2012; 35: 47-49.
Demain S, Gonçalves A-C, Areia C et al. Living with, managing and minimising treatment burden in long term conditions: a systematic review of qualitative research. PLoS One 2015;10:e0125457.
Tran V-T, Montori VM, Eton DT, Baruch D, Falissard B, Ravaud P. Development and description of measurement properties of an instrument to assess treatment burden among patients with multiple chronic conditions. BMC Med 2012; 10: 68.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010; 10: 22.
Tran V-T, Ravaud P. COllaborative open platform E-cohorts for research acceleration in trials and epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 124: 139-148.
Krishna GS, Ramam M, Mehta M, Sreenivas V, Sharma VK, Khandpur S. Vitiligo impact scale: an instrument to assess the psychosocial burden of vitiligo. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2013; 79: 205-210.
Salzes C, Abadie S, Seneschal J et al. The Vitiligo Impact Patient Scale (VIPs): development and validation of a vitiligo burden assessment tool. J Investig Dermatol 2016; 136: 52-58.
Ezzedine K, Ahmed M, Tovar-Garza A et al. Cross-cultural validation of a short-form of the Vitiligo Impact Patient scale (VIPs). J Am Acad Dermatol 2019; 81: 1107-1114.
Şenol A, Yücelten AD, Ay P. Development of a quality of life scale for vitiligo. Dermatology 2013; 226: 185-190.
Gries K, Berry P, Harrington M et al. Literature review to assemble the evidence for response scales used in patient-reported outcome measures. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2018; 2: 41.
Stull DE, Leidy NK, Parasuraman B, Chassany O. Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: challenges and potential solutions. Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25: 929-942.
Gunning R. The Technique of Clear Writing. Mcgraw-Hill, New York, 1952.
Contreras A, García-Alonso R, Echenique M, Daye-Contreras F. The SOL formulas for converting SMOG readability scores between health education materials written in Spanish, English, and French. J Health Commun 1999; 4: 21-29.
Wieland A, Durach CF, Kembro J, Treiblmaier H. Statistical and judgmental criteria for scale purification. Supply Chain Manag 2017; 22: 321-328.
Thurstone LL. Multiple-Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1947.
de Morata-Ramírez MLÁ, Holgado-Tello FP. Construct validity of likert scales through confirmatory factor analysis: a simulation study comparing different methods of estimation based on Pearson and Polychoric correlations. Int J Soc Sci Stud 2013; 1: 54-61.
Kaiser H. An index of factor simplicity. Psychometrika 1974; 39: 31-36.
Cerny CA, Kaiser HF. A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivar Behav Res 1977; 12: 43-47.
Humphreys LG, Montanelli RG, Jr. An investigation of the parallel analysis criterion for determining the number of common factors. Multivar Behav Res 1975; 10: 193-205.
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297-334.
Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol 2014; 105: 399-412.
Finlay AY, Khan GK. Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)-a simple practical measure for routine clinical use. Clin Exp Dermatol 1994; 19: 210-216.
van Geel N, Lommerts JE, Bekkenk MW et al. Development and validation of a patient-reported outcome measure in vitiligo: the Self Assessment Vitiligo Extent Score (SA-VES). J Am Acad Dermatol 2017; 76: 464-471.
Gower JC. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 1971; 27: 857-874.
Murtagh F, Legendre P. Ward's hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: which algorithms implement ward's criterion? J Classif 2014; 31: 274-295.
Charrad M, Ghazzali N, Boiteau V, Niknafs A. NbClust: an R package for determining the relevant number of clusters in a data Set. J Stat Soft 2014; 61: 1-36.
Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 28-36.
Tubach F. Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64: 34-37.
Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB. Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis 2007; 66: iii40-iii41.
Weir JP. Quantifying test retest reliability using the intraclass correlation and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 231-240.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310.
Field J, Holmes MM, Newell D. PROMs data: can it be used to make decisions for individual patients? A narrative review. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 2019; 10: 233-241.
Asati DP, Gupta CM, Tiwari S, Kumar S, Jamra V. A hospital-based study on knowledge and attitude related to vitiligo among adults visiting a tertiary health facility of central India. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2016; 7: 27-32.
Sav A, Kendall E, McMillan SS et al. ‘You say treatment, I say hard work’: treatment burden among people with chronic illness and their carers in Australia. Health Soc Care Community 2013; 21: 665-674.
Gonçalves A-CV, Jácome CIO, Demain SH, Hunt KJ, de Marques ASPD. Burden of treatment in the light of the international classification of functioning, disability and health: a “best fit” framework synthesis. Disabil Rehabil 2017; 39: 1253-1261.
Gallacher K, May CR, Montori VM, Mair FS. Understanding patients' experiences of treatment burden in chronic heart failure using normalization process theory. Ann Fam Med 2011; 9: 235-243.
Harb N, Foster J, Dobler C. Patient-perceived treatment burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. COPD 2017; 12: 1641-1652.
Eleftheriadou V, Thomas K, van Geel N et al. Developing core outcome set for vitiligo clinical trials: international e-Delphi consensus. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res 2015; 28: 363-369.