Assessing Participants’ Experiences with Vitiligo from Patient Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vitiligo is an autoimmune disease, causing skin depigmentation. Individuals with vitiligo incur substantial psychosocial burden and have expressed frustration with their treatments. Here, we describe the burden of vitiligo and opinions on what constitutes meaningful change among participants of two qualitative interview studies. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a subgroup of adolescent and adult participants with vitiligo from two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials of ruxolitinib cream (Study 1) and a real-world panel (Study 2). Participants were asked about their disease burden, treatment goals, importance of facial/body improvement (treatment satisfaction: scale range 0–10), and meaningfulness of change (yes/no). A total of 36 participants from Study 1 and 23 from Study 2 were interviewed. In Study 1, the highest degree of impact was on reduced self-esteem (facial lesions, 62.5%; body lesions, 55.6%), social inhibition (facial lesions, 65.6%; body lesions, 61.1%), and sun sensitivity (facial lesions, 31.3%; body lesions, 55.6%). Most participants (83.3%) reported that facial improvement was equally (36.1%) or more important (47.2%) than body improvement, with mean treatment satisfaction of 8.1 and 6.9, respectively. Meaningful change was reported by 83.3% and 92.9% of participants with 50–74% and ≥ 75% improvement per the facial Vitiligo Area Scoring Index, respectively, and by 82.6% of participants with ≥ 25% improvement per the total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index per Study 1 outcomes at Week 24. In Study 2, most (82.6%) participants felt that the noticeability of their vitiligo affected their behavior. Nearly all (87.0%) said that an ideal treatment would repigment or return natural color to their facial skin; 56.5% considered ≥ 50% facial repigmentation to be the smallest meaningful improvement. Participants from both qualitative interviews expressed substantial psychosocial burden. Repigmentation in both facial and body vitiligo were important, with meaningful change determined to be ≥ 50% facial repigmentation and ≥ 25% body repigmentation. Vitiligo is an autoimmune disease that causes white patches to appear on the skin, affecting about 2% of people worldwide. People with vitiligo often have poor quality of life due to their disease and frequently do not believe that treatments work. We explored how people with vitiligo felt about their disease, and asked what hopes they had for treatment. Individual telephone interviews were conducted with 36 adolescents and adults with vitiligo from two clinical studies (Study 1) and 23 adolescents and adults with vitiligo from a real-world panel (Study 2) in the USA and Canada. Those from Study 1 said that their vitiligo caused them to have low self-esteem and to feel lonely. Most said that it was as important or more important to restore color to white patches on their face (i.e., repigmentation) than the body. Most achieving repigmentation of more than 50% on the face or more than 25% on the body were pleased with their treatment. In Study 2, most people said that their disease affected their behavior, and nearly all said that completely restoring color to their facial skin (i.e., 100% repigmentation) was important. Over half said that the smallest change they thought was important was more than 50% facial repigmentation. In short, people with vitiligo in two interview studies said that their vitiligo affected their quality of life. Most people with vitiligo in these studies reported that it was important to repigment more than 50% on the face and more than 25% on the body.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".