Search

For assessing health‐related quality of life in patients with chronic wounds, the Wound‐QoL questionnaire has been developed. Two different versions exist: the Wound‐QoL‐17 and the Wound‐QoL‐14. For international and cross‐cultural comparisons, it is necessary to demonstrate psychometric properties in an international study. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test both questionnaires in a European sample, using item response theory (IRT). Participants were recruited in eight European countries. Item characteristic curves (ICC), item information curves (IIC) and differential item functioning (DIF) were calculated. In both questionnaires, ICCs for most items were well‐ordered and sufficiently distinct. For items, in which adjacent response categories were not sufficiently distinct, response options were merged. IICs showed that items on sleep and on pain, on worries as well as on day‐to‐day and leisure activities had considerably high informational value. In the Wound‐QoL‐14, the item on social activities showed DIFs regarding the country and age. The same applied for the Wound‐QoL‐17, in which also the item on stairs showed DIFs regarding age. Our study showed comparable results across both versions of the Wound‐QoL. We established a new scoring method, which could be applied in international research projects. For clinical practice, the original scoring can be maintained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Topical agents are an essential component of psoriasis therapy. Objectives To develop a new version of the patient-reported Patient Benefit Index assessing the importance and achievement of treatment goals in topical psoriasis therapy in adult patients (PBI-TOP). Methods Through semi-structured interviews, focus groups and free-text questionnaires, patients reported their needs in topical treatment. Based on qualitative content analysis, items were developed by a consensus group and were refined in cognitive debriefing interviews. A pilot validation assessed the PBI-TOP and convergent criteria [Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI); affected Body Surface Area (BSA)]. Results Thirty patients (26–72 years, mean 47; 60% male) reported various treatment goals relating to the themes 'effectiveness' and 'characteristics of the preparation'. Twenty patients took part in cognitive debriefings (22–84 years, mean 50.6, 50% male). There were 154 patients who participated in the pilot validation (18–85 years, mean 46.9, 63.6% male). An importance-weighted total score on overall effectiveness and three subscales based on exploratory factor analysis were defined: effectiveness on symptoms, effectiveness on quality of life (QoL), and characteristics of the preparation. All scores showed excellent internal consistency (α > 0.9). The global effectiveness score correlated significantly with DLQI (r = –0.41), PASI (r = –0.32) and BSA (r = –0.22). The effectiveness subscales (symptoms; QoL) correlated significantly with DLQI (r = –0.41; –0.32) and PASI (r = –0.27; –0.33). The score on characteristics of the preparation correlated significantly with the DLQI (r = –0.34). Conclusions The PBI-TOP showed good feasibility and favourable psychometric characteristics in this pilot validation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Wound‐QoL assesses the impact of chronic wounds on patients' health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). A 17‐item and a shortened 14‐item version are available. The Wound‐QoL‐17 has been validated for multiple languages. For the Wound‐QoL‐14, psychometric properties beyond internal consistency were lacking. We aimed to validate both Wound‐QoL versions for international samples representing a broad range of European countries, including countries for which validation data had yet been pending. Patients with chronic wounds of any aetiology or location were recruited in Austria, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland and Ukraine. Psychometric properties were determined for both Wound‐QoL versions for the overall sample and, if feasible, country‐wise. We included 305 patients (age 68.5 years; 52.8% males). Internal consistency was high in both Wound‐QoL‐17 (Cronbach's α: 0.820–0.933) and Wound‐QoL‐14 (0.779–0.925). Test–retest reliability was moderate to good (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.618–0.808). For Wound‐QoL‐17 and Wound‐QoL‐14, convergent validity analyses showed highest correlations with global HRQoL rating (r = 0.765; r = 0.751) and DLQI total score (r = 0.684; r = 0.681). Regarding clinical data, correlations were largest with odour (r = −0.371; r = −0.388) and wound size (r = 0.381; r = 0.383). Country‐wise results were similar. Both Wound‐QoL versions are valid to assess HRQoL of patients with chronic wounds. Due to its psychometric properties and brevity, the Wound‐QoL‐14 might be preferrable in clinical practice where time is rare. The availability of various language versions allows for the use of this questionnaire in international studies and in clinical practice when foreign language patients are being treated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent years, legal and infrastructural conditions have been set to improve the adoption of digital applications in health care in Germany. The impact of these actions was amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. So far, no studies have confirmed this progress in dermatology. Objective: The aim of this study was to measure changes in knowledge, interest, expectation, and use of digital applications in health care among dermatologists in Germany in 2019 and 2021. Methods: We administered a repeated cross-sectional survey among dermatologists in medical practices and clinics in Germany at 2 time points: t1 (2019; before the COVID-19 pandemic) and t2 (2021; during the COVID-19 pandemic). We used a standardized questionnaire, including items on respondents' knowledge, interest, expectation, and use of digital applications, as well as their demographics. The survey was distributed by post and email. The data were analyzed descriptively as well as with multiple logistic regressions. Results: At t1, 585 (272/571, 47.6% female; mean age 52.4, SD 8.9 years) dermatologists and at t2, 792 (360/736, 48.9% female; mean age 54.3, SD 8.6 years) dermatologists participated in this survey. Interest in digital medicine was higher at t1 than at t2 (381/585, 65.1% vs 458/792, 57.8%; P ≤.001). Nevertheless, 38.6% (306/792) had used digital applications more often since the beginning of the pandemic. For example, real-time telemedicine with patients (12/585, 2.1% vs 160/792, 7.6%; P ≤.001) and other specialists did increase (33/385, 5.7% vs 181/792, 22.8%; P ≤.001). Almost one-third expressed great concerns about digitalization (272/792, 34.3% vs 294/792, 37.1%; P =.21). Spatial analysis revealed higher interest in, more positive expectations toward, and higher use of digital applications in urban areas in comparison to rural areas. For instance, dermatologists from urban areas assessed future applications as having less risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.35-0.76) than did dermatologists from rural areas. The situation was similar with the age groups, as, for example, dermatologists aged <50 years also expected lower risks (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.77) than those aged ≥50 years. There were no differences between sexes in use, but there were differences in knowledge and expectation; for example, male participants assessed their confidence in using digital applications as higher (aOR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01-2.04) than did female participants. Conclusions: During the pandemic, the use of digital applications in dermatology increased but still remained at a moderate level. The regional and age-related disparities identified indicate the need for further action to ensure equal access to digital care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Targeted treatment and immunotherapy, both adjuvant treatment options, come with a certain toxicity and can cause severe side effects. To date, data about the underlying reasons for patients to accept or reject specific types of adjuvant therapy is scarce. Therefore, this study investigates the motives of melanoma patients for tolerating or rejecting adjuvant therapy and its side effects., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with a subsample of patients to investigate the underlying reasons for treatment decisions in a quantitative treatment-trade off study. Categorisation was conducted using qualitative content analysis., Results: The 17 participants had a mean age of 55.5 years and 12 were female. The final category system covered three clusters. The cluster "type of therapy and therapy process" described therapy-related aspects that affect acceptability of adjuvant treatments. Prospect of treatment benefit and side effects were important aspects. Route of administration and physician visits should be convenient. The cluster "way of living" described the influence that activities and circumstances of life organisation have on acceptability. Participants wished treatment to affect everyday life as little as possible. Maintaining sufficient quality of life was mentioned to be crucial. The cluster "emotions and feelings" described optimism and hope but also mental strain originating from possible treatment options., Conclusion: Patients in our study indicate high willingness to undergo adjuvant therapy, even when facing toxicity. The evaluation of potential side effects and prospects of treatment benefit is highly individual. Therefore, it is important to consider personal patient preferences to make appropriate and shared decision-making., Competing Interests: Declarations. Competing interests: TMJ has no conflict of interest.LM has no conflict of interest.CB has no conflict of interest.KCK serves as consultant to Philogen, BMS, MSD, Sanofi Aventis, Immunocore and received travel grants and speaker fees from Philogen, Pierre Fabre, BMS, MSD, Sun Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Medac and has received research support by Novartis. Competing interests: LM has no conflict of interest. CB has no conflict of interest. KCK serves as consultant to Philogen, BMS, MSD, Sanofi Aventis, Immunocore and received travel grants and speaker fees from Philogen, Pierre Fabre, BMS, MSD, Sun Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Medac and has received research support by Novartis. Ethics approval: This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Germany (D 435/20). Consent to publish: Complete written informed consent was obtained from the patients for the publication of this study., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Due to scientific progress, healthcare professionals should regularly undergo appropriate continuing education. For this, knowledge transfer is essential. Therefore, the aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the acquisition, status and transfer of knowledge of professional groups applying phlebological compression therapy in Germany., Materials and Methods: Healthcare professionals (physicians, nurses and medical assistants) received a questionnaire developed for this study, which queried different aspects of acquisition, status and transfer of knowledge., Results: Responses from 522 participants were analysed. The topic of compression therapy was not taught in the nursing or medical education of 43.3%. Specialist journals that address compression therapy were read regularly (at least 6 times/year) by 16.1% of the participants; 63.0% had no specialist books on this subject. Only 6.7% were aware of AWMF ("Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften") guidelines on the topic and 16.3% of the corresponding DNQP ("Deutsches Netzwerk für Qualitätsentwicklung in der Pflege") expert standard. In all, 41.2% participated in at least one internal training on compression therapy per year, 72.0% in external training and 19.2% in online training. A total of 30.7% stated that they did not use any information sources to acquire knowledge., Conclusions: Possible sources of knowledge about compression therapy in Germany are insufficiently known within the investigated healthcare professional groups studied or are not regularly used. The result is a considerable knowledge deficit with a discrepancy between the current state of science and practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)