Dataset Information

FACE-Q Eye Module for Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Cosmetic Eye Treatments.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Aesthetic eye treatments can dramatically change a person's appearance, but outcomes are rarely measured from the patient perspective. The patient perspective could be measured using an eye-specific patient-reported outcome measure. Objective:To describe the development and psychometric evaluation of FACE-Q scales and an adverse effect checklist designed to measure outcomes following cosmetic eye treatments. Design, Setting, and Participants:Pretreatment and posttreatment patients 18 years and older who had undergone facial aesthetic procedures were recruited from plastic surgery clinics in United States and Canada and completed FACE-Q scales between June 6, 2010, and July 14, 2014. We used Rasch Measurement Theory, a modern psychometric approach, to refine the scales and to examine psychometric properties. Main Outcomes and Measures:The FACE-Q Eye Module, which has 4 scales that measure appearance of the eyes, upper and lower eyelids, and eyelashes. Scale scores range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). The module also includes a checklist measuring postblepharoplasty adverse effects. Results:Overall, 233 patients (81% response rate) 18 years and older participated. Adverse effects included being bothered by eyelid scars, dry eyes, and eye irritation. In Rasch Measurement Theory analysis, each scale's items had ordered thresholds and good item fit. Person Separation Index and Cronbach ? were greater than or equal to 0.83. Higher scores on the eye scales correlated with fewer adverse effects (range, -0.26 to -0.36). In the pretreatment group, older age correlated with lower scores (range, -0.42 to -0.51) on the scales measure appearance of the eyes and upper and lower eyelids. Compared with the pretreatment group, posttreatment participants reported significantly better scores on the scales measuring appearance of eyes overall, as well as upper and lower eyelids. Conclusions and Relevance:The FACE-Q Eye Module can be used in clinical practice, research and quality improvement to collect evidence-based outcomes data. Level of Evidence:NA.

SUBMITTER: Klassen AF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5247311 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

FACE-Q Eye Module for Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Cosmetic Eye Treatments.

Klassen Anne F AF Cano Stefan J SJ Grotting James C JC Baker Stephen B SB Carruthers Jean J Carruthers Alastair A Van Laeken Nancy N Sykes Jonathan M JM Schwitzer Jonathan A JA Pusic Andrea L AL

JAMA facial plastic surgery 20170101 1

<h4>Importance</h4>Aesthetic eye treatments can dramatically change a person's appearance, but outcomes are rarely measured from the patient perspective. The patient perspective could be measured using an eye-specific patient-reported outcome measure.<h4>Objective</h4>To describe the development and psychometric evaluation of FACE-Q scales and an adverse effect checklist designed to measure outcomes following cosmetic eye treatments.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>Pretreatment and post ...[more]

PMID: 27631534

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Despite the growing popularity of cosmetic procedures, the sociocultural and quality-of-life factors that motivate patients to undergo such procedures are not well understood. Objective:To estimate the relative importance of factors that motivate patients to seek minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants:This prospective, multicenter observational study was performed at 2 academic and 11 private dermatology practice sites that represented all US geographic regions. Adult patients presenting for cosmetic consultation or treatment from December 4, 2016, through August 9, 2017, were eligible for participation. Exposures:Participants completed a survey instrument based on a recently developed subjective framework of motivations and a demographic questionnaire. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary outcomes were the self-reported most common motivations in each quality-of-life category. Secondary outcomes were other frequently reported motivations and those associated with specific procedures. Results:Of 529 eligible patients, 511 agreed to participate, were enrolled, and completed the survey. Typical respondents were female (440 [86.1%]), 45 years or older (286 [56.0%]), white (386 [75.5%]), and college educated (469 [91.8%]) and had previously received at least 2 cosmetic procedures (270 [52.8%]). Apart from motivations pertaining to aesthetic appearance, including the desire for beautiful skin and a youthful, attractive appearance, motives related to physical health, such as preventing worsening of condition or symptoms (253 of 475 [53.3%]), and psychosocial well-being, such as the desire to feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life (314 of 467 [67.2%]), treat oneself or celebrate (284 of 463 [61.3%]), and look good professionally (261 of 476 [54.8%]) were commonly reported. Motivations related to cost and convenience were rated as less important (68 of 483 [14.1%]). Most motivations were internally generated, designed to please the patients and not others, with patients making the decision to undergo cosmetic procedures themselves and spouses seldom being influential. Patients younger than 45 years were more likely to undertake procedures to prevent aging (54 of 212 [25.5%] vs 42 of 286 [14.7%] among patients ?45 years; P?<?.001). Patients seeking certain procedures, such as body contouring (19 of 22 [86.4%]), acne scar treatment (36 of 42 [85.7%]), and tattoo removal (8 of 11 [72.7%]), were more likely to report psychological and emotional motivations. Conclusions and Relevance:This initial prospective, multicenter study comprehensively assessed why patients seek minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. Common reasons included emotional, psychological, and practical motivations in addition to the desire to enhance physical appearance. Differences relative to patient age and procedures sought may need further exploration.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an existing perception that obesity has a negative impact on complications following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, data on the impact of obesity levels on patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) is sparse. We investigated the association between different obesity classes with PROMs among patients who underwent TKA.MethodsWe performed retrospective secondary analyses on data extracted from the total joint replacement data repository (Alberta, Canada) managed by the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute (ABJHI). Patients had WOMAC and EQ5D scores measured at baseline in addition to 3 and/or 12 months following TKA. Patients were stratified according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification, into five body mass index (BMI) groups of normal, overweight, BMI class I, BMI class II, and BMI class III. The association between BMI and mean changes in WOMAC subscales (pain, function, and stiffness) and EQ-5D-5L index over the time intervals of baseline to 3 months and 3 to 12 months following TKA was assessed. Linear mixed-effects models were used, and the models were adjusted for age, sex, length of surgery, comorbidities, year of surgery, and geographical zone where the surgery was performed.ResultsMean age was 65.5 years (SD = 8.7). Postoperatively, there was a significant improvement (p < 0.001) in WOMAC subscales of patient-reported pain, function, and stiffness, as well as EQ-5D-5L regardless of BMI group. Although, patients in BMI class II and class III reported significantly improved pain 3 months after TKA compared to those with normal BMI, all BMI groups attained similar level of pain reduction at 12 months after TKA. The greatest improvement in all WOMAC subscales, as well as EQ5D index, occurred between baseline and 3 months (adjusted p < 0.0001).ConclusionThe findings indicate that patients reported improved pain, function, and stiffness across all BMI groups following TKA. Patients with BMI classified as obese reported similar benefits to those with BMI classified as normal weight. These results may help health care providers to discuss expectations regarding the TKA recovery in terms of pain, function, and quality of life improvements with their TKA candidates.

Project description:PurposeTo determine whether active smokers have different patient-reported outcomes relative to nonsmokers for pain, function, and overall health at baseline and 1 or 2 years after an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy.MethodsPatients who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy were identified. Demographic data, including smoking status and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), were prospectively collected preoperatively and 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed using the mixed-effects model to compare PROMs preoperatively and 1 or 2 years postoperatively between nonsmokers and active smokers.Results509 knees undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy were divided into 2 cohorts: group I, nonsmokers (n = 470) and group II, active smokers (n = 39). There were statistically significant baseline differences in PROMs for nonsmokers versus smokers: visual analog scale (VAS), 5.0 ± 0.4 versus 6.3 ± 0.7, respectively (P = .001); Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Pain scale, 50.3 ± 3.2 versus 42.5± 5.5 (P = .005); KOOS Symptoms scale, 50.0 ± 3.2 versus 43.6 ± 5.4 (P = .019); and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain scale, 57.5 ± 3.4 versus 48.2 ± 6.1 (P = .003). There were also statistically significant differences in nonsmokers versus smokers regarding knee function at baseline shown by the KOOS Activites of Daily Living (ADL) scale: (61.1 ± 3.3 versus 53.5 ± 6.1; P = .015). Baseline mental health, as assessed by the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) Mental Health questionnaire, was also statistically different between nonsmokers (55.4 ± 0.8) and smokers (51.5 ± 3.3; P = .020). Importantly, PROMs for pain and function were lower at all time points for smokers.ConclusionPatients who were active smokers at the time of partial meniscectomy had significantly worse baseline and postoperative PROMs compared with nonsmokers. Changes from baseline for smokers and nonsmokers were relatively consistent between groups 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Smokers will improve a relatively similar amount as nonsmokers after partial meniscectomy, but their overall PROM scores are lower.Level of evidenceIII, retrospective comparative study.

Dataset Information

FACE-Q Eye Module for Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Cosmetic Eye Treatments.

Publications

FACE-Q Eye Module for Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Cosmetic Eye Treatments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets