4.4 Article

Validation of the Self-Reported Psoriasis Treatment Convenience Scale (PTCS)

期刊

DERMATOLOGY AND THERAPY
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 2077-2088

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s13555-021-00626-5

关键词

Psoriasis; Treatment adherence and compliance; Convenience; Patient-reported outcome measures

资金

  1. MC2 Therapeutics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The PTCS is a new, reliable, sensitive, validated tool for the assessment of patient-reported treatment convenience. Use of the PTCS will facilitate evaluation of convenience as part of the clinical development of topical therapies, and thus may help to improve patient adherence and, therefore, treatment outcomes.
Introduction Adherence to topical treatments for psoriasis is reported to be poor. One key contributing factor is the inconvenience associated with formulations that may be greasy, time consuming to apply, and slow to absorb. There is a paucity of patient-reported outcome measures that evaluate psoriasis patients' perceptions of treatment convenience. The Psoriasis Treatment Convenience Scale (PTCS) was therefore developed and validated. Methods Following a literature review of issues relating to convenience of topical treatments, important items were identified and a draft version of the PTCS was developed and underwent content validity testing (n = 20). The revised scale was included in a clinical trial of topical therapy (n = 794; NCT03308799), and psychometric testing was performed. Results The final questionnaire included five core items and one overall satisfaction question. In psychometric testing, the scale demonstrated stability across trial population, and good validity, reliability, and sensitivity. Conclusion The PTCS is a new, reliable, sensitive, validated tool for the assessment of patient-reported treatment convenience. Use of the PTCS will facilitate evaluation of convenience as part of the clinical development of topical therapies, and thus may help to improve patient adherence and, therefore, treatment outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据