Dataset Information

Daily Quality-of-life Impact of Scars: An Interview-based Foundational Study of Patient-reported Themes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Scars negatively impact mental health. Prior patient interview studies on cutaneous scars have elicited opinions pertaining to psychosocial effects, appearance, and symptoms. There remains a need for patient-reported opinions in broader contexts, including career and sexual well-being, to better understand patients' experiences with their cutaneous scars.

Methods

In this qualitative study, patients with cutaneous scars participated in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparative approach using the data software QDAMiner, to generate a thematic framework encompassing patients' experience with cutaneous scars.

Results

In total, 37 patients aged 25-79 years (mean 45, SD 17.9) were interviewed. Patients presented with keloid (2/37, 5%), hypertrophic (5/37, 14%), atrophic (4/37, 11%), and linear surgical (18/37, 49%) scars. Opinions fell under 8 overarching themes. Patients spoke commonly about psychological and social well-being (references to the frequency of thinking about a scar and talking about scars with others were mentioned 56 times by 26 patients and 103 times by 29 patients, respectively, for example). Discussions of sexual well-being and career were elicited but rarer (references to feeling uncomfortable when naked and negative impacts on professional networking were mentioned 17 times by 7 patients and 5 times by 3 patients, respectively, for example).

Conclusions

The relationship between determinants of patients' opinions of their scars and their impact on quality-of-life is complex. These results expand upon the existing knowledge of the effects scars have on quality-of-life and can contribute to the development and validation of future scar outcome measures.

SUBMITTER: Hsieh JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8049395 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDirectly recorded patient experience of symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) can complement lung function and exacerbation rate data in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical studies. The FULFIL study recorded daily symptoms and activity limitation together with additional patient-reported outcomes of dyspnea and HRQoL, as part of the prespecified analyses. FULFIL co-primary endpoint data have been previously reported.MethodsFULFIL was a phase III, 24-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study comparing once-daily single inhaler triple therapy [fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI)] 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg with twice-daily inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist therapy [budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR)] 400 µg/12 µg in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. A subset participated for 52 weeks. Patient-reported assessments were: Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD™ (E-RS: COPD), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) for COPD, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), baseline and transitional dyspnea indices (TDI) and daily and global anchor questions for activity limitation.ResultsFF/UMEC/VI showed greater reductions from baseline in 4-weekly mean E-RS: COPD total and all subscale scores compared with BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05) at each time period. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated greater improvements from baseline at weeks 4 and 24 in SGRQ domain scores and TDI focal score compared with BUD/FOR. At weeks 4 and 24, improvements greater than the minimal clinically important difference from baseline were observed in CAT score with FF/UMEC/VI, but not BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P ≤ 0.003).ConclusionThese findings demonstrate sustained daily symptom and HRQoL benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR. The inclusion of the CAT may provide data that are readily generalizable to everyday clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02345161.FundingGSK.

Project description:IntroductionBardet-Biedl syndrome (BBS) is a rare genetic disease associated with hyperphagia, a pathologic insatiable hunger, due to impaired signaling in the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) pathway. The impact of hyperphagia on the lives of patients with BBS and their families has not been fully characterized.MethodsPatients with BBS or their caregivers who participated in clinical trials of the MC4R agonist setmelanotide (NCT03013543 and NCT03746522) were included in this qualitative study. Telephone interviews were conducted using a semistructured interview guide to explore patient experience and caregiver observations of hyperphagia before and during setmelanotide treatment.ResultsNineteen interviews (8 patients, 11 caregivers) were conducted. The term "hunger" (rather than "hyperphagia") was used in interviews to ensure common terminology. Before setmelanotide treatment, all participants described their (or their child's) hunger as all-consuming, leading to an obsessive focus on food. Nine participants recalled intense, continuous hunger, and most participants (5 patients, 10 caregivers) reported lack of control with eating. Negative impacts on patients' lives included difficulties with concentration, emotional and physical manifestations, and impaired relationships. All participants experienced or observed improvements in hunger and health outcomes during treatment, the most meaningful of which included weight loss and decrease in obsessive focus on food and food-seeking behaviors. All participants reported improvements in either physical and/or emotional well-being and being satisfied with setmelanotide.ConclusionsHyperphagia and resulting food-seeking behaviors have notable negative impacts on quality of life in patients with BBS and caregivers. Setmelanotide improved hyperphagia, reduced body weight and obsessive focus on food, and facilitated improvements in physical and emotional well-being for both patients and caregivers.Trial registrationNCT03013543 and NCT03746522.

Project description:ObjectivesAssociations between BMI and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in SLE have been implied, but data are scarce. We determined the impact of overweight and obesity on HRQoL in a large SLE population.MethodsWe pooled cross-sectional baseline data from the BLISS-52 (NCT00424476) and BLISS-76 (NCT00410384) trials (N = 1684). HRQoL was evaluated using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue scale and the European Quality of Life 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Comparisons between BMI groups were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test and adjustments using linear regression. Clinical relevance was determined by minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs).ResultsIn total, 43.2% of the patients had BMI above normal and 17.4% were obese. Overweight and obese patients reported worse SF-36 physical component summary (PCS), physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain and FACIT-Fatigue scores than normal weight patients. Divergences were greater than corresponding MCIDs and more prominent with increasing BMI. Despite no clinically important difference in SF-36 mental component summary scores across BMI categories, patients experienced progressively diminished vitality and social functioning with increasing BMI. In linear regression analysis, BMI above normal and obesity were associated with worse PCS (standardized coefficient β = -0.10, P < 0.001 and β = -0.17, P < 0.001, respectively), FACIT-Fatigue (β = -0.11, P < 0.001 and β = -0.16, P < 0.001) and EQ-5D (β = -0.08, P = 0.001 and β = -0.12, P < 0.001) scores, independently of demographic and disease-related factors. The impact of BMI on the PCS and FACIT-Fatigue was more pronounced than that of SLE activity.ConclusionPatients with SLE and BMI above normal experienced clinically important HRQoL diminutions in physical aspects, fatigue and social functioning. A survey of potential causality underlying this association is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundAcne affects more than 80% of adolescents and young adults, who most often develop acne scars. Supporting data on the effect of acne scars on patient's health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are limited.ObjectiveThe aim was to determine how the severity of acne scars impacts the HRQOL of afflicted individuals.MethodsIn this population-based cross-sectional study, 723 adults with facial acne scars but without active acne lesions self-completed the Self-assessment of Clinical Acne-Related Scars (SCARS) questionnaire formulated to investigate degree of acne scarring. The Facial Acne Scar Quality of Life (FASQoL), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Dysmorphic Concern Questionnaire (DCQ) were completed to assess the attitude of these patients toward their scars and the impact of scarring on their HRQOL.ResultsThe mean (standard error) DLQI score for facial acne scars was 6.26 (0.22). Acne scars were considered a 'very large' or 'extremely large' concern by 19.3% of participants with mild scars as compared to 20.1% and 34.0% of participants with moderate and severe/very severe scars, respectively (P = 0.003). Higher FASQoL scores were associated with increased severity of scarring (P = 0.001). In total, 16.9% of participants had clinical features of dysmorphia (i.e., DCQ > 13). DCQ scores were significantly higher among participants with more severe scarring (mean DCQ score of 8.04 [0.28], 8.40 [0.18], and 10.13 [0.08] among participants with mild, moderate, and severe/very severe acne scars, respectively; P = 0.001). Most commonly reported signs of emotional distress were self-consciousness (68.0%) and worry about scars not going away (74.8%).ConclusionsThis study highlights the significant psychosocial impact of atrophic acne scars in the form of embarrassment and self-consciousness. Individuals with mild scars also expressed significant impact on quality of life that increased with aggravation of scar severity. Patient-reported outcomes provide an insight into the physical, functional, and psychological impact of acne scarring from the patient's perspective.

Project description:IntroductionTocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy has been proven as an effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical trials. However, there are limited data available regarding the effectiveness of TCZ monotherapy in real-world clinical settings in the United States. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of TCZ monotherapy on disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a US-based observational cohort of patients with RA seen in routine clinical practice.MethodsEligible patients had active RA, no prior use of TCZ, and initiated TCZ as monotherapy. Changes in disease activity and PROs were assessed 1 year after TCZ initiation for the overall cohort and stratified by number of prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis; 0, 1, or ≥2). Primary outcomes were change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI); change in patient global disease activity, pain, fatigue; and the proportions of patients with improvement in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ), morning stiffness, and EQ-5D.ResultsOf 255 eligible TCZ monotherapy initiators, 9.4% were TNFi naive, 36.5% had one prior TNFi, and 54.1% had ≥2 prior TNFis. Clinical and PRO measures indicated that patients were substantially impacted by their disease at baseline. The median decrease in CDAI from baseline to 1 year was 9.8 and median patient global and pain scores improved by 10 mm, indicative of clinically meaningful improvement; the median fatigue score improved by 5 mm. Approximately 26% of patients reported clinically meaningful improvement in mHAQ, 54% experienced improvement in morning stiffness, and 20% to 36% experienced improvement in EQ-5D domains (walking, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression). Improvements were similar across TNFi groups.ConclusionsPatients with active, refractory RA who initiated TCZ monotherapy experienced improvements in both composite disease activity scores and PROs at 1 year, regardless of prior TNFi exposure.FundingCorrona, LLC and Genentech.

Project description:PurposePatient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been widely used to measure breast cancer (BC) treatment outcomes. However, evidence is still limited on using routinely PROs to personalize treatment decision-making, including or not chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and radiotherapy. Using patient baseline PRO scores, we aimed to use PROs before treatment initiation to predict improvement or decline in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) due to treatment that they receive.MethodsIn two French cancer sites, women with non-metastatic BC completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and BREAST-Q questionnaires to assess their PROs at baseline and again at 6 months. The outcome measured was post-operative change in PROs with minimal important difference for QLQ-C30 domains. We performed multivariate ordinal logistic regression to estimate the incremental probability of post-operative PRO improvements and deteriorations depending upon treatment options and baseline HRQoL.ResultsOne hundred twenty-seven women completed questionnaires. Chemotherapy had significant negative impacts on Global health status (GHS) and on physical and social functioning. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased patient fatigue scores after adjusting for clinical factors (p< 0.01 and p< 0.05, respectively). The incremental probability of GHS deteriorations for chemotherapy was +0.3, +0.5, and +0.34 for patients with baseline GHS scores of 40, 70, and 100, respectively. This showed that different pre-treatment PROs might predict differential effects of chemotherapy on women change in HRQoL.ConclusionPatients with different baseline PRO scores may experience dissimilar impacts from BC treatments on post-operative PROs in terms of improvements and deteriorations. Oncologists might decide to adapt the treatment option based on a given level of the negative impact. Future studies should concentrate on incorporating this information into routine clinical decision-making strategies to optimize the treatment benefit for patients.