The concepts important to children and young adults who undergo treatments for facial differences are not well-defined. Measurement of treatment outcomes from the patient’s perspective is necessary to ensure goals of treatment are met. We aimed to identify concepts important to children and young adults with facial differences through a qualitative study.
Design:
An interpretive description qualitative approach was followed. Semistructured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim, and coded using a line-by-line approach. Qualitative analysis led to the development of a conceptual framework of outcomes important to patients.
Setting:
Interviews were conducted in Canada and the United Kingdom at home, by telephone, or in the hospital.
Participants:
Participants (N = 72) were recruited between May and June 2014 from craniofacial clinics at the Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto) and Great Ormond Street Hospital (London). Participants included anyone with a visible and/or functional facial difference aged 8 to 29 years and fluent in English, excluding patients with a cleft. The sample included 38 females and 34 males, with a mean age of 13.9 years, and included 28 facial conditions (11 facial paralysis, 18 ear anomalies, 26 skeletal conditions, and 17 soft tissue conditions).
Results:
Analysis led to identification of important concepts within 4 overarching domains: facial appearance, facial function, adverse effects of treatment, and health-related quality of life (psychological, social, and school function).
Conclusions:
Our study provides an understanding of concepts important to children and young adults with facial differences.
AlbornozCRPusicALReaveyPScottAMKlassenAFCanoSJCordeiroPGMatrosE. Measuring health-related quality of life outcomes in head and neck reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg. 2013;40(2):341–349. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2012.10.008
2.
AlikhanAIbrahimiOAEisenDB. Congenital melanocytic nevi: where are we now? Part I. Clinical presentation, epidemiology, pathogenesis, histology, malignant transformation, and neurocutaneous melanosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(4):495. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2012.06.023
3.
BevansKBRileyAWMoonJForrestCB. Conceptual and methodological advances in child-reported outcomes measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(4):385–396.
4.
FalcoNAErikssonE. Facial nerve palsy in the newborn: incidence and outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;85(1):1–4.
5.
FattahABorschelGHManktelowRTBezuhlyMZukerRM. Facial palsy and reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(2):340e–352e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aedd9
6.
FayedNSchiaritiVBostanCCiezaAKlassenA. Health status and QOL instruments used in childhood cancer research: deciphering conceptual content using world Health organization definitions. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1247–1258.
7.
FeragenKBStockNM. Psychological adjustment to craniofacial conditions (excluding oral clefts): a review of the literature. Psychol health. 2017;32(3):253–288.
8.
FettNWerthVP. Update on morphea: part I. epidemiology, clinical presentation, and pathogenesis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64(2):217–228. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2010.05.045
9.
ForrestCRHopperRA. Craniofacial syndromes and surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(1):86e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e318272c12b
10.
FriedmanJM. Epidemiology of neurofibromatosis type 1. Am J Med Genet. 1999;89(1):1–6.
11.
IrwinDEGrossHEStuckyBDThissenDDeWittEMLaiJSAmtmannDKhastouLVarniJWDeWaltDA. Development of six PROMIS pediatrics proxy-report item banks. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:22. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-10-22
12.
Kapp-SimonKAMcguireDE. Observed social interaction patterns in adolescents with and without craniofacial conditions. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 1997;34(5):380–384. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1997_034_0380_osipia_2.3.co_2
13.
KilclineCFriedenIJ.Infantile hemangiomas: how common are they? A systematic review of the medical literature. Pediatric Dermatol. 2008;25(2):168–173. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1470.2008.00626.x
14.
KlassenAFLipnerSO’MalleyMLongmireNMCanoSJBreitkopfTRaeCZhangYLPusicAL. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate treatments for acne and acne scarring: the ACNE-Q. Br J Dermatol. 2019;181(6):1207–1215. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18005
15.
KlassenAFWong RiffKWYLongmireNMAlbertAAllenGCAydinMABakerSBCanoSJChanAJCourtemancheDJ, et al.Psychometric findings and normative values for the CLEFT-Q based on 2434 children and young adult patients with cleft lip and/or palate from 12 countries. CMAJ. 2018;190(15):e455–462. doi:10.1503/cmaj.170289
16.
LeeEHKlassenAFLawsonJLCanoSJScottAMPusicAL. Patient experiences and outcomes following facial skin cancer surgery: a qualitative study. Australas J Dermatol. 2016;57(3):e100–104. doi:10.1111/ajd.12323
17.
LongmireNMWong RiffKWYO’HaraJLAggarwalaSAllenGCBulstrodeNWForrestCRFrenchBRGoodacreTEEMarucciD, et al.Development of a new module of the face-q for children and young adults with diverse conditions associated with visible and/or functional facial differences. Facial Plast Surg. 2017;33(5):499–508. doi:10.1055/s-0037-1606361
18.
LuquettiDVHeikeCLHingAVCunninghamMLCoxTC. Microtia: epidemiology and genetics. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A(1):124–139. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.34352
19.
MasnariOSchiestlCWeibelLWuttkeFLandoltMA. How children with facial differences are perceived by non-affected children and adolescents: perceiver effects on stereotypical attitudes. Body Image. 2013a;10(4):515–523. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.05.007
20.
MasnariOSchiestlCRösslerJGütleinSKNeuhausKWeibelLMeuliMLandoltMA. Stigmatization predicts psychological adjustment and quality of life in children and adolescents with a facial difference. J Pediatr Psychol. 2013b;38(2):162–172. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jss106
21.
MonahanRSederKPatelPAlderMGrudSO’GaraM.Hemifacial microsomia. Etiology, diagnosis and treatment. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;132(10):1402–1408.
22.
PatrickDLBurkeLBGwaltneyCJLeidyNKMartinMLMolsenERingL.. Content validity establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (pro) instruments for medical product evaluation: ispor pro good research practices task force report: part 2 assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011a;14(8):978–988. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.013
23.
PatrickDLBurkeLBGwaltneyCJLeidyNKMartinMLMolsenERingL. Content validity--establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1--eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011b;14(8):967–977. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.014
24.
PusicALKlassenAFScottAMCanoSJ. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q satisfaction with appearance scale: a new patient-reported outcome instrument for facial aesthetics patients. Clin Plast Surg. 2013;40(2):249–260. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2012.12.001
25.
RiffKWYWTsangarisEGoodacreTEEForrestCRPusicALCanoSJKlassenAF. International multiphase mixed methods study protocol to develop a cross-cultural patient-reported outcome instrument for children and young adults with cleft lip and/or palate (CLEFT-Q). BMJ Open. 2017;7(1): e015467. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015467
26.
RumseyNHarcourtD. Visible difference amongst children and adolescents: issues and interventions. Dev Neurorehabil. 2007;10(2):113–123.
27.
SandelowskiM. Theoretical saturation. In GivenL, ed. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications Inc; 2008. doi:10.4135/9781412963909
28.
StockNMFeragenKB. Comparing psychological adjustment across cleft and other craniofacial conditions: implications for outcome measurement and intervention. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019a;56(6):766–772.
29.
StockNMFeragenKB. Assessing psychological adjustment to congenital craniofacial anomalies: an illustration of methodological challenges. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019b;56(1):64–73. doi:10.1177/1055665618769661
30.
TapiaVJDrizinJHDalle OreCNietoMRomeroYMagallonSNayakRSiglerAMalcarneVGosmanA. Qualitative methods in the development of a bilingual and bicultural quality of life outcomes measure for pediatric patients with craniofacial conditions. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78(5 suppl 4):S248–S255. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000001027
31.
TapiaVJEpsteinSTolmachOSHassanASChungNNGosmanAA. Health-Related quality-of-life instruments for pediatric patients with diverse facial deformities: a systematic literature review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(1):175–187. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002285
32.
TerweeCBPrinsenCACChiarottoAWestermanMJPatrickDLAlonsoJBouterLMde VetHCWMokkinkLB. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159–1170. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0.
33.
ThorneS. Interpretive Description. Left Coast Press; 2008.
34.
TopolskiTDEdwardsTCPatrickDL. Quality of life: how do adolescents with facial differences compare with other adolescents?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):25–32. doi:10.1597/03-097.3.1
35.
TsangarisEWong RiffKWYGoodacreTEEForrestCRDreiseMSykesJde ChalainTHarmanKO’MahonyAPusicAL, et al.Establishing content validity of the CLEFT-Q: a new patient-reported outcome instrument for cleft lip/palate. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(4):e1305. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000001305
36.
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009. Accessed June 1, 2019: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm193282.pdf
37.
VarniJWLimbersCABurwinkleTM. How young can children reliably and validly self-report their health-related quality of life?: an analysis of 8,591 children across age subgroups with the PedsQLTM 4.0 generic core scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:1. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-1
38.
VarniJWSeidMRodeCA. The PedsQL: measurement model for the pediatric quality of life inventory. Med Care. 1999;37(2):126–139. doi:10.1097/00005650-199902000-00003
39.
WatersEDavisERonenGRosenbaumPLivingstonMSaigalS.Quality of life instruments for children and adolescents with neurodisabilities: How to choose the appropriate instrument. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2009;51(8):660–669.
40.
WickertNMWong RiffKWYMansourMForrestCRGoodacreTEEPusicALKlassenAF. Content validity of patient-reported outcome instruments used with pediatric patients with facial differences: a systematic review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(7):989–998. doi:10.1597/16-148
41.
WilkieAO. Craniosynostosis: genes and mechanisms. Hum Mol Genet. 1997;6(10):1647–1656. doi:10.1093/hmg/6.10.1647
42.
WongKWYForrestCRGoodacreTEEKlassenAF. Measuring outcomes in craniofacial and pediatric plastic surgery. Clin Plast Surg. 2013;40(2):305–312. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2012.11.005
43.
Wong RiffKWYTsangarisEGoodacreTEEForrestCRLawsonJPusicALKlassenAF. What matters to patients with cleft lip and/or palate: an international qualitative study informing the development of the CLEFT-Q. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(3):442–450. doi:10.1177/1055665617732854
