Prioritizing treatment outcomes: How people with acne vulgaris decide if their treatment is working

Layton, A and Whitehouse, H and Eady, E.A and Cowdell, Fiona and Warburton, K and Fenton, M (2017) Prioritizing treatment outcomes: How people with acne vulgaris decide if their treatment is working. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 10 (3). pp. 163-170. ISSN 1756-5383

Preview

Text Outcomes paper for JEBM accepted version 07Feb17.pdf - Accepted Version Download (396kB)

Abstract

Objective
To collect information about how people with acne make day‐to‐day decisions concerning the effectiveness of their treatment.

Methods
Between May and August 2013, an optional question was embedded in the James Lind Alliance Acne Priority Setting Partnership's online survey to collect treatment uncertainties. The question asked people with acne to “Tell us in your own words how you decide if your treatment has been effective.”

Results
A total of 742 respondents specified at least one outcome or means of assessing change (outcome measure). Fewer spots were the most commonly cited outcome, identified by 272 respondents (36.7%). Other frequently mentioned outcomes were in descending order: less redness (19.4%), reduction in spot size (12.1%), and less pain/discomfort (11.4%). Signs were much more commonly used than symptoms and surrogate outcomes such as changes in aspects of life quality were infrequently mentioned. Visual inspection of the skin was the most widely adopted outcome measure (16.3%).

Conclusions
Although the most frequently used methods map well onto the outcome measures adopted in the majority of acne trials, namely physician‐assessed changes in lesion counts and global acne severity, people with acne often take into account several factors that cannot be assessed by a third party at a single point in time. The minimal use of changes in psychosocial wellbeing and mood may reflect that these are regarded as secondary consequences of improvements in appearance. The robustness of these findings now requires independent evaluation. If confirmed, they could form the basis of a new patient‐reported outcome measure.

Item Type:	Article
Identification Number:	10.1111/jebm.12249
Dates:	Date Event 8 February 2016 Accepted 26 April 2017 Published
Subjects:	CAH02 - subjects allied to medicine > CAH02-04 - nursing and midwifery > CAH02-04-01 - nursing (non-specific)
Divisions:	Faculty of Health, Education and Life Sciences > College of Health and Care Professions
Depositing User:	Fiona Cowdell
Date Deposited:	24 Aug 2018 09:02
Last Modified:	03 Mar 2022 15:37
URI:	https://www.open-access.bcu.ac.uk/id/eprint/6175

Actions (login required)

View Item