A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in child and adolescent burn research

C Griffiths; L Armstrong-James; P White; N Rumsey; J Pleat; D Harcourt

doi:10.1016/j.burns.2014.07.018

A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in child and adolescent burn research

Burns. 2015 Mar;41(2):212-24. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2014.07.018. Epub 2014 Oct 7.

Authors

C Griffiths¹, L Armstrong-James², P White³, N Rumsey⁴, J Pleat⁵, D Harcourt⁶

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Appearance Research (CAR), University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom. Electronic address: catrin.griffiths@uwe.ac.uk.
² Centre for Appearance Research (CAR), University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Laura2.Armstrong-James@uwe.ac.uk.
³ Department of Engineering Design and Mathematics, University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom. Electronic address: paul.white@uwe.ac.uk.
⁴ Centre for Appearance Research (CAR), University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Nichola.rumsey@uwe.ac.uk.
⁵ Department of Plastic Surgery, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom. Electronic address: jonathon.pleat@nbt.nhs.uk.
⁶ Centre for Appearance Research (CAR), University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom. Electronic address: diana2.harcourt@uwe.ac.uk.

PMID: 25300756
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2014.07.018

Abstract

Introduction: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) can identify important information about patient needs and therapeutic progress. The aim of this review was to identify the PROMs that are being used in child and adolescent burn care and to determine the quality of such scales.

Methods: Computerised and manual bibliographic searches of Medline, Social Sciences Index, Cinahl, Psychinfo, Psycharticles, AMED, and HAPI, were used to identify English-language articles using English-language PROMs from January 2001 to March 2013. The psychometric quality of the PROMs was assessed.

Results: 23 studies met the entry criteria and identified 32 different PROMs (31 generic, 1 burns-specific). Overall, the psychometric quality of the PROMs was low; only two generic scales (the Perceived Stigmatisation Questionnaire and the Social Comfort Scale) and only one burns-specific scale (the Children Burn Outcomes Questionnaire for children aged 5-18) had psychometric evidence relevant to this population.

Conclusions: The majority of PROMs did not have psychometric evidence for their use with child or adolescent burn patients. To appropriately identify the needs and treatment progress of child and adolescent burn patients, new burns-specific PROMs need to be developed and validated to reflect issues that are of importance to this population.

Keywords: Adolescent; Burn; PROM; Paediatric; Patient-reported outcome measures; Systematic review.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Adolescent
Burns / therapy*
Child
Humans
Patient Outcome Assessment*
Pediatrics*
Psychometrics