Electronic and paper delivery of parent proxy and children's report of two scar-specific patient-reported outcome measures (Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale): An equivalence study

Brandon Meikle; Megan Simons; Jill Meirte; Kate Miller; Roy Kimble; Zephanie Tyack

doi:10.1016/j.burns.2024.107359

Electronic and paper delivery of parent proxy and children's report of two scar-specific patient-reported outcome measures (Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale): An equivalence study

Burns. 2024 Dec 18;51(2):107359. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2024.107359. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Brandon Meikle¹, Megan Simons², Jill Meirte³, Kate Miller⁴, Roy Kimble⁵, Zephanie Tyack⁶

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Children's Burns and Trauma Research, Queensland Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Children's Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Faculty of Medicine, Herston, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
² Children's Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Faculty of Medicine, Herston, Queensland, Australia; Occupational Therapy Department, Queensland Children's Hospital, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Pegg Leditschke Children's Burns Centre, Queensland Children's Hospital, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
³ Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, REVAKI-MOVANT, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, The University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium; Oscare, Organisation for Burns, Scar After-Care and Research, Antwerp, Belgium.
⁴ Centre for Children's Burns and Trauma Research, Queensland Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Occupational Therapy Department, Queensland Children's Hospital, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Pegg Leditschke Children's Burns Centre, Queensland Children's Hospital, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
⁵ Centre for Children's Burns and Trauma Research, Queensland Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Children's Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Faculty of Medicine, Herston, Queensland, Australia; Pegg Leditschke Children's Burns Centre, Queensland Children's Hospital, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
⁶ Children's Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Faculty of Medicine, Herston, Queensland, Australia; Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHI), Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia.

PMID: 39731969
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2024.107359

Abstract

Introduction: The Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (BBSIP) and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) are used in burn scar assessment to quantify patient health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). These questionnaires were developed using pen-and-paper delivery methods; however, there is a push towards electronic delivery of these questionnaires in both clinical practice and research. Equivalence testing is required to ensure that validity of these paper questionnaires is maintained electronically.

Methods: Participants were presented with a survey containing the BBSIP and POSAS, which was completed twice during a single outpatient appointment using either pen-and-paper or a tablet. Completion order was randomised to: 1) paper-paper; 2) paper-tablet; 3) tablet-paper; and 4) tablet-tablet. Comparison of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), calculated for each BBSIP and POSAS subscale, was conducted with the ICC of the paper-paper group.

Results: Participants (n = 104) included 55 caregiver proxies of children aged 8 years or less, 26 caregiver proxies of children aged 8-18 years, and 23 children aged 8-18 years. The majority but not all BBSIP (61 %) and POSAS (81 %) subscales were equivalent. The acceptability of electronic delivery was supported.

Conclusion: Findings generally support electronic delivery of the BBSIP and POSAS, likely supporting their use in outpatient clinics, telehealth clinics, and remote monitoring. Additional testing is required for subscales that did not demonstrate equivalence.

Keywords: Cicatrix; Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs); Health-related quality of life; Measurement-based care; Paediatrics; Scar quality.