Occupational asthma is a form of asthma that is often under-diagnosed and under-reported. Unrecognized occupational asthma can lead to progression of disease and increased morbidity. The medical history is a critical element for establishing a diagnosis of OA. The history should include a detailed assessment of the workplace environment, the work process, changes in symptoms in and away from the workplace, and a review of relevant material safety data sheets that may provide clues regarding exposure(s) and the potential cause(s). Objective testing including spirometry pre- and post-bronchodilators, peak expiratory flow rate monitoring in and out of the workplace, provocation testing (i.e., methacholine challenge) to assess for airway hyperresponsiveness, and, if feasible, specific provocation by experienced personnel in a controlled setting to a suspected inciting agent are necessary for confirming a diagnosis. Skin or serologic testing for specific IgE to aeroallergens to assess the worker's atopic status is useful especially when considering certain forms of OA where atopy is a risk factor. Specialized laboratory testing may be useful for specific OA causes. It is important to correctly make the diagnosis of OA as the impact on the worker's future employment and earning power can be significantly affected.

Objective The FACE‐Q Craniofacial Module for children and young adults is a patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to measure outcomes for patients aged 8 to 29 years with facial conditions. The aim of this study was to establish content validity of a relevant subset of the module for its use in orthodontic patients with malocclusion. Setting and Sample Population Experts in orthodontics were emailed and invited to provide feedback through a Research Electronic Data Capture survey. Patient feedback was obtained through cognitive interviews with patients aged 8 to 29 years recruited from a university‐based orthodontic clinic in Canada. Materials and Methods Expert opinion and patient interviews were used to obtain feedback on the content of 4 appearance (face, smile, teeth and jaws) and 1 function (eating and drinking) scales hypothesized to be relevant to orthodontic malocclusions, and to elicit new concepts. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed, and coded using a line‐by‐line approach. Results Twenty‐one experts and 15 patients participated. Expert feedback led us to drop 9, retain 40, revise 4 and add 16 new items. At the conclusion of cognitive interviews no items were dropped, 55 were retained, 5 were revised and 8 new items were added. The final set of 68 items demonstrated content validity for orthodontic patients. Conclusion Expert feedback and cognitive interviews enabled us to revise and refine 5 scales as part of the FACE‐Q Craniofacial Module for use in orthodontic patients. These scales were included in the internationalfield‐test of the FACE‐Q Craniofacial Module.

No abstract

No abstract