Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Apr 24;6(4):e1672.
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001672. eCollection 2018 Apr.

Development of a New Patient-reported Outcome Instrument to Evaluate Treatments for Scars: The SCAR-Q

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Development of a New Patient-reported Outcome Instrument to Evaluate Treatments for Scars: The SCAR-Q

Anne F Klassen et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Every year millions of individuals acquire scars. A literature review of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments identified content limitations in existing scar-specific measures. The aim of this study was to develop a new PRO instrument called SCAR-Q for children and adults with surgical, traumatic, and burn scars.

Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of the qualitative datasets used in the development of PRO instruments for plastic and reconstructive surgery, that is, BREAST-Q, FACE-Q, BODY-Q, and CLEFT-Q. The keyword "scar*" was used to extract scar-specific text. Data were analyzed to identify concepts of interest and to form a comprehensive item pool. Scales were developed and refined through multiple rounds of cognitive interviews with patients and with input from international clinical experts between July 2015 and December 2016.

Results: A total of 52 children and 192 adults from the qualitative datasets provided between 1 and 34 scar-specific codes (n = 1,227). The analysis led to the identification of 3 key domains for which scales were developed: scar appearance (eg, size, color, contour), scar symptoms (eg, painful, tight, itchy), and psychosocial impact (eg, feeling self-conscious, bothered by scar). Cognitive interviews with 25 adults and 20 pediatric participants with scars, plus feedback from 27 clinical experts, led to rewording and removal of items, and new items added. These steps ensured content validity for SCAR-Q in a broad range of scars.

Conclusions: The SCAR-Q is now being field-tested. Once completed, we anticipate SCAR-Q will be used in clinical practice and in clinical trials to test different scar therapies.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Number of items per domain by originating sample. Aesth, aesthetics; Aug, augmentation sample; BCT, breast-conserving therapy sample; BODY-Q, body contouring sample; Child YA, child and young adult sample; CLEFT-Q, cleft lip and/or palate sample; Expect, expectations sample; Head Neck, head neck cancer sample; LD, latissimus dorsi sample; Recon, reconstruction sample; Reduct, reduction sample; Skin, skin cancer sample.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 2 articles

References

    1. Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD, et al. An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data. Lancet. 2008;372:139–144.. - PubMed
    1. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist. 2009;74:1–43..
    1. Mundy LR, Miller HC, Klassen AF, et al. Patient-reported outcome instruments for surgical and traumatic scars: a systematic review of their development, content, and psychometric validation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016;40:792–800.. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA, et al. The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1960–1965.; discussion 1966. - PubMed
    1. Bock O, Schmid-Ott G, Malewski P, et al. Quality of life of patients with keloid and hypertrophic scarring. Arch Dermatol Res. 2006;297:433–438.. - PubMed
Feedback