Development and clinimetric evaluation of the mouth impairment and disability assessment (MIDA)

Evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures in burn-specific tools: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are now well-established tools to evaluate the quality of patient-centred care. Due to the multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary nature of the practice of burn care, as well as the range of significant potential sequelae, PROM's should form a fundamental component of burn quality improvement programs. We aim to 1. Explore biological, psychological, and social considerations that are currently listed in burn-specific PROM tools, as well as their efficacy, 2. Evaluate biological, psychological, and social factors that are considered in new burn-specific PROM tools or those under development, and 3. Identify any opportunities with respect to burn-specific PROM tools, in order to inform future investigation in this area.

METHODS

A search was performed of MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases. Two independent reviewers screened article titles/abstracts and then the full texts using Covidence. All studies were graded independently according to the Quality Rating Scheme for Studies and Other Evidences.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 552 references. Based on ab initio inclusion and exclusion criteria, 133 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility, and 21 articles were ultimately included in the systematic review. Due to study heterogeneity, a qualitative synthesis was conducted. Existing burn-specific PROMs covered a range of biological, psychological, and social factors affecting adult and paediatric patients with burn injury, but several studies required additional PROMs for a thorough evaluation. Burn-specific PROM tools under development are poised to fill this deficit.

CONCLUSION

Major burn injuries are a unique form of trauma, requiring coordinated management that considers numerous factors not relevant to other patient populations. Further research is necessary to validate existing burn-specific PROM tools and to develop more comprehensive burn-specific PROM measures that more comprehensively incorporate the bio-psycho-social model of health.

Burn Injury Complications Impacting Rehabilitation

Successful post-burn rehabilitation requires an understanding of a wide range of complications to maximize functional recovery. This article reviews a range of potential challenges including burn scar contracture, amputation, peripheral nerve injury, heterotopic ossification, dysphagia, altered skin physiology, pain, and pruritis. The overall focus is to serve as a guide for post-injury therapy and rehabilitation spanning the phases of care and considering evidence-based approaches, prevention, and treatment with an ultimate goal of aiding in the functional recovery and long-term quality of life for burn survivors.

Nonmalignant Oral Disease--Specific Dental Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Adult Patients: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) can be differentiated into outcome measures for all oral diseases, so-called disease-generic dPROMs, and measures for specific oral diseases, so-called disease-specific dPROMs. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the psychometrically validated nonmalignant disease-specific dPROMs for adult patients and the dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) they measure.

METHODS

This systematic review searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane databases along with hand searching, through July 28, 2020, to identify original articles of English language, multi-item dPROMs for adult dental patients with a specific oral disease, condition, or oral manifestations of systemic diseases. We analyzed the questionnaires for content commonalities, the reference or recall period, and the dimensionality.

RESULTS

We retrieved 4228 unique references and identified 34 questionnaires; of which, 31 questionnaires captured impacts from oral diseases or conditions and three from oral manifestations of systemic diseases. All questionnaires together contained 102 dPROMs, measuring 75 dPROs. Oral health-related quality of life was a broader dPRO, which was measured by 24 dPROMs. The 74 narrower dPROs were measured by 78 dPROMs. The dPRO names suggested that essentially four dPROs were measured: Oral Function (N = 19), Orofacial Pain (N = 7), Orofacial Appearance (N = 11), and Psychosocial Impact (N = 37).

CONCLUSIONS

Many psychometrically validated tools (N = 102) are available to measure the impact of specific nonmalignant oral disease on patients. While these tools intend to measure the particular patient-perceived impact profile of the oral disease, all tools measure in essence only four, more general concepts - the dimensions of oral health-related quality of life.