At least twice a month, PRSonally Speaking posts full abstracts of interesting or potentially controversial articles from a future issue. This 'sneak preview' of a hot article is meant to give you some food for thought and provide you with topic for conversation among colleagues.
When the article is published in print with the December issue, it will be FREE for a period of Two Months, to help the conversation continue in the PRS community and beyond. So read the abstract, join the conversation and spread the word.
This week we present the introduction to "Skin Perforator "Measuring Outcomes that Matter to Facelift Patients: Development and Validation of FACE-Q Appearance Appraisal Scales and Adverse Effects Checklist for the Lower Face and Neck" by Pusic et al.
Background: The FACE-Q is a new patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument that can be used to evaluate a range of outcomes for patients undergoing any type of facial cosmetic surgery, minimally invasive cosmetic procedure or facial injectable. The aim of this paper is to describe the development and validation of FACE-Q scales relevant to evaluating outcomes in facelift patients.
Methods: The FACE-Q was developed by following international guidelines for PRO instrument development. For outcomes following a facelift we developed five appearance appraisal scales (i.e., Satisfaction with Cheeks; Satisfaction with Lower Face and Jawline; Appraisal of Nasolabial Folds; Appraisal of Area Under the Chin; Appraisal of the Neck) and an adverse effects checklist. A field-test of these scales was performed in a sample of 225 facelift patients and both modern and traditional psychometric tests were used to examine validity, reliability and responsiveness.
Results: The five FACE-Q appearance appraisal scales were found to be clinically meaningful, reliable, valid and responsive to clinical change. These findings were supported by Rasch Measurement Theory analysis (e.g., overall Chi-square p-values >0.18; Person Separation Index > 0.88). Responsiveness analyses showed that patient scores for facial appearance improved significantly after treatment (p-values <0.001); changes in scores were associated with moderate effect sizes (range effect size: 0.40 to 0.79; range standardized response mean: 0.37 to 0.69). Traditional psychometric statistics provided further support (e.g., Cronbach's alpha values >0.94)
Conclusions: The FACE-Q appearance appraisal scales are scientifically sound and clinically meaningful and can be used with the adverse effects checklist to measure PROs following a facelift.
The full article will be published with the December 2013 issue of PRS, and will be free online for non-subscribers. Until then, we hope this "sneak peek" will pique your interests and start a healthy, meaningful conversation.