Measuring Satisfaction with Appearance
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: Accurate and reliable measurement of patient-reported outcomes is crucial to ongoing practice improvement and clinical research in facial aesthetics. The FACE-Q is a new patient-reported outcome instrument (PRO) composed of numerous independently functioning scales and checklists designed to measure outcomes important to facial aesthetic patients. Here we describe the development and validation of five additional FACE-Q scales. METHODS: The FACE-Q was developed according to international guidelines for PRO instrument development. Through qualitative methods, concepts of interest to patients were identified and used to form scales measuring satisfaction for the following anatomic facial areas: forehead (6-items), cheekbones (10-items) cheeks (10-items), nose (10-items) and nostrils (5-items). These scales were field-tested in 10 plastic surgery and dermatology practices in Canada, USA and UK between 2010- 2014. Rasch Measurement Theory analysis was to evaluate reliability and validity. RESULTS: 393 patients were recruited (282 female, age 18 to 80 years, mean 39.6, sd=15.3). These patients provided 413 data-points (pre/post completions) as follows: Chin = 47/37, Nose/Nostrils 103/79, Cheekbone 45/106, Forehead 27/43. Procedures included rhinoplasty (170), facial injectable/filler (115), facelift/necklift (44), orthognathic surgery/genioplasty (40), browlift (38), blepharoplasty (34), autologous fat grafting (10), cheek/buccal fat reduction (9), skin resurfacing (7), and eyelash treatment (4). All 5 FACE-Q scales were found to be reliable and valid. Specifically, all 41 total items had ordered thresholds, 35 had item fit statistics within the recommended criteria of + 2.5 and all had non-significant Chi-square p-values (all items retained). Scale to sample targeting showed that each construct mapped out a clinically meaningful construct for patients. The Person Separation Index and Cronbach alpha values were 0.88 or higher. As an example of sub-group analysis, among patients undergoing rhinoplasty, Satisfaction with Nose and Nostrils scores (range 0-100) were significantly different in the pre- to post-surgery groups, indicating greater Satisfaction with Nose and Nostril after surgery. Specifically, Nose scores were 39.1 (sd 16.6) pre-op and 73.8 (sd 23.1) post-op (p<0.001), and Nostril scores were 49.9 (sd 28.8) pre-op and 80.7 (sd 24.9) post-op (p<0.001) (Figure 1).Figure 1: Figure 1.CONCLUSIONS: The FACE-Q was developed to provide the research and clinical community with a comprehensive outcome measurement tool for facial aesthetic patients. These 5 condition-specific scales described show preliminary evidence of validity and reliability. Future research using these scales in clinical trials is recommended.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».