The longitudinal validity, reproducibility and responsiveness of the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (caregiver report for young children version) for measuring health-related quality of life in children with burn scars

Simons, Megan; Kimble, Roy; McPhail, Steven; Tyack, Zephanie

doi:10.1016/j.burns.2019.04.015

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…-Content validity: It was created through a relatively rigorous process of semi-structured interviews, content validation surveys, and cognitive interviews ( 19). -Reliability: The proxy-report measure for patients aged zero to 8 years (BBSIP 0−8 ) has been shown to have good longitudinal validity at baseline, 1-2 weeks and 1-month intervals (20).…”

Section: Tools Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scar Assessment Tools: How Do They Compare?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Healing after dermal injury is a complex but imperfect process that results in a wide range of visible scars. The degree of disfigurement is not the sole determinant of a scar's effect on patient well-being, with a number of other factors being critical to outcome. These include cosmetic appearance, symptoms such as itch and pain, functional loss, psychological or social problems, and quality of life. An accurate assessment of these domains can help clinicians measure outcomes, develop, and evaluate treatment strategies. A PubMed literature search was performed up to 31st March 2020. Ten objective scar measurements, four Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures (CROMs), six Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), and one combined measure were evaluated for their reliability, clinical relevance, responsiveness to clinical change, and feasibility. Many quantitative tools were limited in their clinical relevance and feasibility, whereas few qualitative CROMs and PROMs have undergone rigorous assessment. This review examines currently available assessment tools, focusing primarily on subjective scar measurements (CROMs, PROMs), and offers a perspective on future directions in the field.

show abstract

Section: Tools Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…- Reliability: The proxy-report measure for patients aged zero to 8 years (BBSIP 0−8 ) has been shown to have good longitudinal validity at baseline, 1–2 weeks and 1-month intervals ( 20 ).…”

Section: Tools Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scar Assessment Tools: How Do They Compare?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The novel BBSIP is a PROM developed to assess scar outcomes based on elements related to quality of life in patient with scars from burn injuries (13). The BBSIP has been further developed to create versions dedicated to young children aged 8 to 18 (BBSIP 8-18 ) and the caregivers of younger children aged 0 to 8 (BBSIP 0-8 ) (14,15). A recent study measured the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, longitudinal validity and responsiveness of the BBSIP in postacute burn period (15).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The BBSIP has been further developed to create versions dedicated to young children aged 8 to 18 (BBSIP 8-18 ) and the caregivers of younger children aged 0 to 8 (BBSIP 0-8 ) (14,15). A recent study measured the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, longitudinal validity and responsiveness of the BBSIP in postacute burn period (15). The content and construct validity had been reported in another study (13,16).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No statistically significant difference in long term scarring outcomes of pediatric burns patients treated surgically vs. those treated conservatively

Mistry

Issa

2022

Front. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPaediatric burns are a common clinical presentation. The long-term scar outcomes in paediatric burns patients are relatively unknown as most are discharged after 6 weeks follow up, apart from the small number that are followed up by scar services depending on geographical availability. We aimed to determine whether the long-term scarring outcomes are significantly different in those who had surgical treatment with Versajet® debridement and Biobrane®, vs. those treated conservatively with non-adherent Mepitel® and Acticoat® dressings, in a cohort of paediatric burns patients.MethodsThe parents of all paediatric burns patients admitted to Stoke Mandeville Hospital from October 2014 to September 2017 were contacted by telephone to fill in the paediatric Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (BBSIP), the only patient reported outcome measure (PROM) specifically aimed at children. The results from the questionnaires underwent statistical analysis to see if there was a significant difference in questionnaire scores between children treated surgically vs. those treated conservatively.ResultsA total of 107 children were admitted in the timeframe, responses were received from 34 patients with 13 having been treated surgically and 21 having been treated conservatively. In all 58 questions that make up the BBSIP, there was no statistically significant difference observed in the scores of those treated surgically vs. those treated conservatively. For 31 questions on the BBSIP, the lowest score indicating the best outcome was observed in all patients in both groups.DiscussionSurgical management for burns is always the last resort. Our results could be interpreted to suggest clinicians need not fear the longer-term impact a scar may have when deciding whether to treat a paediatric burns patient surgically or conservatively. This study is the first to assess longer-term scar outcomes using the BBSIP. A larger data set and comparison with other burn units in the UK may help to provide more information on scar outcomes between different methods of surgical and conservative treatment. We found no statistically significant difference in the long-term scar outcomes as assessed by the BBSIP in paediatric burn patients treated with Versajet® debridement and Biobrane®, vs. those treated conservatively with non-adherent Mepitel® and Acticoat® dressings.

show abstract

“…It focuses upon patient-specific scar symptomology and components of quality of life, for example, daily activities, social interactions and emotional well-being [ 11 ]. Studies have demonstrated validity for multiple psychometric measures covered within the tool; however, patients’ views regarding the value of the BBSIP have not been explored since its implementation in clinical practice [ 11 , 15 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient experience of scar assessment and the use of scar assessment tools during burns rehabilitation: a qualitative study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Scar assessment plays a key role during burns aftercare, to monitor scar remodelling and patients’ psychosocial well-being. To aid assessment, subjective scar assessment scales are available that use health-care professionals’ and patients’ opinions to score scar characteristics. The subjective scales are more widely used in clinical practice over objective scar measures. To date, there is no research that considers patients’ views on scar assessment and the role of subjective and objective assessment tools. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore patients’ perspectives on scar assessment and the utility of scar assessment tools during burns rehabilitation. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 adult burn patients who were being reviewed in clinic for scarring. Participants were recruited via their clinical care team and research nurses at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. Topics covered during interview included patient experience of scar assessment, the use of scar assessment tools and discussion surrounding important factors to be addressed when assessing scars. A thematic analysis using the Framework Method was conducted. Results Participants identified key subthemes that contribute towards the overarching theme of patient-centred scar assessment. These are: patient-led care; continuity in care; learning how to self-manage scarring; and psychological assessment. Links were demonstrated between these subthemes and the remaining themes that describe scar assessment strategies, indicating their potential patient-centred contributions. The subjective opinions of clinicians were found to be valued above the use of subjective or objective scar assessment tools. Scar assessment scales were perceived to be a beneficial method for self-reflection in relation to psychosocial functioning. However, minimal feedback and review of completed assessment scales led to uncertainty regarding their purpose. Patients perceived objective tools to be of primary use for health-care professionals, though the measures may aid patients’ understanding of scar properties. Conclusions Scar assessment tools should be used to support, rather than replace, health-care professionals’ subjective judgements of scarring. Adapting the way in which clinicians introduce and use scar assessment tools, according to patient needs, can support a patient-centred approach to scar assessment.

show abstract

The longitudinal validity, reproducibility and responsiveness of the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (caregiver report for young children version) for measuring health-related quality of life in children with burn scars

Cited by 19 publications

References 50 publications

Scar Assessment Tools: How Do They Compare?

Scar Assessment Tools: How Do They Compare?

No statistically significant difference in long term scarring outcomes of pediatric burns patients treated surgically vs. those treated conservatively

Patient experience of scar assessment and the use of scar assessment tools during burns rehabilitation: a qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About