A Closer Look at the BREAST-Q©

Clinics in Plastic Surgery

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 287-296

  Cano, Stefan J ^a   Klassen, Anne F ^b   Scott, Amie M ^c   Pusic, Andrea L ^c  

^a PLYMOUTH UNIVERSITY PENINSULA SCHOOLS OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United Kingdom)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Health related quality of life; Outcome assessment (health care); Patient reported outcome instruments; Psychometrics; Questionnaires; Rasch measurement theory; Treatment outcome

Indexed keywords

BODY IMAGE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST Q; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; BREAST SURGERY; CLASSICAL TEST THEORY; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; ITEM RESPONSE THEORY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RASCH MEASUREMENT THEORY; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMAPLASTY; MASTECTOMY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84875355238     PISSN: 00941298     EISSN: 15580504     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cps.2012.12.002     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Fitzpatrick R., Jenkinson C., Klassen A., et al. Methods of assessing health-related quality of life and outcome for plastic surgery. Br J Plast Surg 1999, 52:251-255.
2. Cano S., Browne J., Lamping D. Patient-based measures of outcome in plastic surgery: current approaches and future directions. Br J Plast Surg 2004, 57:1-11.
3. Cano S., Klassen A., Pusic A. The science behind quality-of-life measurement: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009, 123:98e-106e.
4. Kosowski T., McCarthy C., Reavey P., et al. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009, 123:1819-1827.
5. Chen C., Cano S., Klassen A., et al. Measuring quality of life in oncologic breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Breast J 2010, 16:587-597.
6. McCarthy C., Klassen A., Cano S., et al. Patient satisfaction with postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparison of saline and silicone implants. Cancer 2010, 116:5584-5591.
7. Reavey P., Klassen A., Cano S., et al. Measuring quality of life and patient satisfaction after body contouring: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Aesthet Surg J 2011, 31:807-813.
8. Cano S., Klassen A., Scott A., et al. Health outcome and economic measurement in breast cancer surgery: challenges and opportunities. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2010, 10:583-594.
9. Klassen A., Pusic A., Scott A., et al. Satisfaction and quality of life in women who undergo breast surgery: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health 2009, 9:11-18.
10. Pusic A., McCarthy C., Cano S., et al. Clinical research in breast surgery: reduction and postmastectomy reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 2008, 35:215-226.
11. Pusic A., Reavey P., Klassen A., et al. Measuring patient outcomes in breast augmentation: introducing the BREAST-Q augmentation module. Clin Plast Surg 2009, 36:23-32. v.
12. Cano S., Klassen A., Scott A., et al. The BREAST-Q ©: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012, 129:293-302.
13. Food and Drug Administration. Patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labelling claims. Food and Drug Administration 2009.
14. Ahmed S., Berzon R., Revicki D., et al. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Med Care 2012, 50(12):1060-1070.
15. Pusic A., Klassen A., Scott A., et al. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009, 124:345-353.
16. Pusic A., Chen C.M., Cano S., et al. Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007, 120:823-837. [discussion: 838-9].
17. UK Department of Health Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS 2010, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
18. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council Crossing the quality chasm: the IOM health care quality initiative 2001, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
19. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust Assessing health status and quality of life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002, 11:193-205.
20. Revicki D. FDA draft guidance and health-outcomes research. Lancet 2007, 369:540-542.
21. Andrich D. Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms?. Med Care 2004, 42:17-116.
22. Wilson M. Constructing measures: an item response modelling approach 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (NJ).
23. Andrich D., de Jong J., Sheridan B. Diagnostic opportunities with the Rasch model for ordered response categories. Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences 1997, 59-70. Waxmann Verlag, Munster (Germany). J. Rost, R. Langeheine (Eds.).
24. Fisher W., Stenner A. Integrating qualitative and quantitative research approaches via the phenomenological method. Int J Mult Res Approaches 2011, 5:89-103.
25. Snell L., McCarthy C., Klassen A., et al. Clarifying the expectations of patients undergoing implant breast reconstruction: a qualitative study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010, 126:1825-1830.
26. Andrich D., Sheridan B. RUMM 2030 1997-2012, RUMM Laboratory, Perth (WA).
27. Cano S., Hobart J. The problem with health measurement. Patient Prefer Adherence 2011, 5:279-290.
28. Hobart J., Cano S. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic intervention in MS: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess 2009, 13:1-200.
29. Wright B., Linacre J. Observations are always ordinal: measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989, 70:857-860.
30. The new rules of measurement 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (NJ). S. Embretson, S. Hershberger (Eds.).
31. Cano S., Posner H., Moline M., et al. The ADAS-cog in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: psychometric evaluation of the sum and its parts. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010, 81:1363-1368.
32. McHorney C., Tarlov A. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?. Qual Life Res 1995, 4:293-307.
33. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Education Research. 1960.
34. McHorney C., Haley S., Ware J.J. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50:451-461.
35. Prieto L., Alonso J., Lamarca R. Classical test theory versus Rasch analysis for quality of life questionnaire reduction. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:27.
36. Whitaker J., McFarland H., Rudge P., et al. Outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis trials: a critical analysis. Mult Scler 1995, 1:37-47.
37. Platz T., Eickhof C., Nuyens G., et al. Clinical scales for the assessment of spasticity, associated phenomena, and function: a systematic review of the literature. Disabil Rehabil 2005, 27:7-18.
38. Wright B., Masters G. Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement 1982, MESA, Chicago.
39. Linacre J. Computer-adaptive testing: a methodology whose time has come. Development of computerised middle school achievement tests 2000, 1-58. Komesa Press, Seoul (South Korea). S. Chae, U. Kang, E. Jeon (Eds.).
40. Wright B.D. Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model. J Educ Meas 1977, 14:97-116.
41. Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement 1988, Sage Publications, Beverley Hills (CA).
42. Lord F., Novick M. Statistical theories of mental test scores 1968, Addison-Wesley, Reading (MA).
43. Lumsden J. Person reliability. Appl Psychol Meas 1977, 1:477-482.
44. Waller M. Estimating parameters in the Rasch model: removing the effects of random guessing 1976, Educational Testing service, Princeton (NJ).
45. Birnbaum A. Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. Statistical theories of mental test scores 1968, 397-422. Addison-Wesley, Reading (MA). F.M. Lord, M.R. Novick (Eds.).
46. Novick M. The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. J Math Psychol 1966, 3:1-18.
47. Massof R. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci 2002, 79:516-552.
48. Hobart J., Cano S., Zajicek J., et al. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol 2007, 6:1094-1105.
49. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978, 43:561-573.