Patient-and observer-reported long-term scar quality of wide local excision scars in melanoma patients

An organizational framework for patient-reported outcome instruments in dermatologic surgery: a systematic review and qualitative analysis

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) describe measures of a patient's experience throughout medical care as reported by the patient (Mercieca-Bebber et al. in Patient Relat Outcome Meas, 2018). Various PRO instruments exist. It is challenging to select appropriate instruments given the absence of an organizational framework which describes all measurable PROs in dermatologic surgery and represents which instruments measure which outcomes. Our objective was to systematically review all validated PRO instruments in dermatologic surgery and use qualitative analysis to develop an organizational framework representing PRO measures and instruments. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases were searched to retrieve validated PRO instruments in the dermatologic surgery population. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis was used to develop an organizational framework representing all PROs in dermatologic surgery. All instruments were sorted into this framework. The search identified 3195 articles; 35 validated instruments were extracted and qualitatively analyzed. The organizational framework sorted all instruments into 36 PRO measures aligned with the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (Gershon RC, Rothrock N, Hanrahan R, et al (2010) The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research). Measures were grouped into four categories (expectations, satisfaction, quality of life, needs) describing how patients experience these outcomes and lenses through which researchers can evaluate them. In conclusion, we have proposed an organizational framework for use in choosing validated instruments to develop and answer PRO research questions.

Study protocol for a 10-year prospective observational study, examining lymphoedema and patient-reported outcome after breast reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decades, treatment of breast cancer has become increasingly more effective. Consequently, an increasing number of women are living with late effects of breast cancer treatment, including disfiguring scars, deformity or asymmetry of the breast, secondary lymphoedema and other physical and psychosocial late effects. Data from this study will provide knowledge on how to guide breast reconstruction in the future towards outcomes with fewer complications, higher long-term quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction with the aesthetic outcome. The development of secondary lymphoedema, for which the effect of breast reconstruction has yet to be established, will be thoroughly examined.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Women receiving breast reconstruction (autologous and implant based) at the Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Rigshospitalet, will be invited to participate. The patients will be followed for 10 years postoperatively. Demographic, health-related, oncological characteristics and treatment data will be registered. Validated assessment tools, such as the BREAST-Q and Beck Depression Inventory, will be used to measure an extensive range of clinical outcomes, including QoL, life and aesthetic satisfaction and depression. Arm range of motion will be measured with a goniometer and lymphoedema by bioimpedance spectroscopy, compared with circular arm measurements.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will be conducted according to the 5th version of the Helsinki Declaration. The regional ethical committee for Capital Region Denmark did not find the study notifiable, according to the law of the committee § 1, part 4. All data will be anonymised before its publication. This study will be conducted according to the Danish data protection regulation and is catalogued and approved by the Capital Region Head of Knowledge Centre. According to the Danish health law § 46, part 2, this study does not need the Danish Patient Safety Authority's approval. The findings of this study will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals.