Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 May 5:10:1020523.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1020523. eCollection 2023.

Evidence of the content validity, acceptability, and feasibility of a new Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases measure

Rachael Pattinson  1 , Nirohshah Trialonis-Suthakharan  2 , Rachael M Hewitt  1 , Maria José Valencia López  2 , Nasim Tahmasebi Gandomkari  2 , Jennifer Austin  3 , Allison FitzGerald  3 , Nick Courtier  1 , Matthias Augustin  2 , Chris Bundy  1
Affiliations

Evidence of the content validity, acceptability, and feasibility of a new Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases measure

Rachael Pattinson et al. Front Med (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Background: The Global Research on the Impact of Dermatological Diseases (GRIDD) team is developing the new Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure of the impact of dermatological conditions on the patient's life, in partnership with patients. To develop PRIDD, we conducted a systematic review, followed by a qualitative interview study with 68 patients worldwide and subsequently a global Delphi survey of 1,154 patients to ensure PRIDD items were meaningful and important to patients.

Objective: To pilot test PRIDD with patients with dermatological conditions, focusing on its content validity (comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, and relevance), acceptability, and feasibility.

Methods: We conducted a theory-led qualitative study using the Three-Step Test-Interview method of cognitive interviewing. Three rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted online. Adults (≥ 18 years) living with a dermatological condition and who spoke English sufficiently to take part in the interview were recruited through the International Alliance of Dermatology Patient Organizations' (GlobalSkin) global membership network. The topic guide met the gold-standard COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) standards for cognitive interviewing. Analysis followed the thematic analytical model of cognitive interviewing.

Results: Twelve people (58% male) representing six dermatological conditions from four countries participated. Overall, patients found PRIDD to be comprehensible, comprehensive, relevant, acceptable, and feasible. Participants were able to discern the conceptual framework domains from the items. Feedback resulted in: the recall period being extended from 1 week to 1 month; removal of the 'not relevant' response option; and changes to the instructions and item ordering and wording to improve clarity and increase respondents' confidence in their ability to respond. These evidence-based adjustments resulted in a 26-item version of PRIDD.

Conclusion: This study met the gold-standard COSMIN criteria for the pilot testing of health measurement instruments. The data triangulated our previous findings, in particular the conceptual framework of impact. Our findings illuminate how patients understand and respond to PRIDD and other patient-reported measurement instruments. The results of comprehensibility, comprehensiveness, relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of PRIDD provide evidence of content validity from the target population. The next step in the development and validation of PRIDD is psychometric testing.

Keywords: burden of disease; cognitive interview; content validity (MeSH); dermatology; patient-centered; patient-reported outcome measure; pilot test; quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

    1. Batchelor JM, Ridd MJ, Clarke T, Ahmed A, Cox M, Crowe S, et al. . The eczema priority setting partnership: a collaboration between patients, carers, clinicians and researchers to identify and prioritize important research questions for the treatment of eczema. Br J Dermatol. (2013) 168:577–82. doi: 10.1111/bjd.12040, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Koo J, Lebwohl A. Psycho dermatology: the mind and skin connection. Am Fam Physician. (2001) 64:1873–8. PMID: - PubMed
    1. Germain N, Augustin M, François C, Legau K, Bogoeva N, Desroches M, et al. . Stigma in visible skin diseases—a literature review and development of a conceptual model. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. (2021) 35:1493–504. doi: 10.1111/jdv.17110, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kini SP, DeLong LK, Veledar E, McKenzie-Brown AM, Schaufele M, Chen SC. The impact of pruritus on quality of life: the skin equivalent of pain. Arch Dermatol. (2011) 147:1153–6. doi: 10.1001/archdermatol.2011.178 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beiteke U, Bigge S, Reichenberger C, Gralow I. Pain and pain management in dermatology. JDDG. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. (2015) 13:967–87. doi: 10.1111/ddg.12822, PMID: - DOI - PubMed