Validation of the Wound-QoL-17 and the Wound-QoL-14 in a European sample of 305 patients with chronic wounds

The Wound-QoL assesses the impact of chronic wounds on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A 17-item and a shortened 14-item version are available. The Wound-QoL-17 has been validated for multiple languages. For the Wound-QoL-14, psychometric properties beyond internal consistency were lacking. We aimed to validate both Wound-QoL versions for international samples representing a broad range of European countries, including countries for which validation data had yet been pending. Patients with chronic wounds of any aetiology or location were recruited in Austria, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland and Ukraine. Psychometric properties were determined for both Wound-QoL versions for the overall sample and, if feasible, country-wise. We included 305 patients (age 68.5 years; 52.8% males). Internal consistency was high in both Wound-QoL-17 (Cronbach's α: 0.820–0.933) and Wound-QoL-14 (0.779–0.925). Test–retest reliability was moderate to good (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.618–0.808). For Wound-QoL-17 and Wound-QoL-14, convergent validity analyses showed highest correlations with global HRQoL rating (r = 0.765; r = 0.751) and DLQI total score (r = 0.684; r = 0.681). Regarding clinical data, correlations were largest with odour (r = −0.371; r = −0.388) and wound size (r = 0.381; r = 0.383). Country-wise results were similar. Both Wound-QoL versions are valid to assess HRQoL of patients with chronic wounds. Due to its psychometric properties and brevity, the Wound-QoL-14 might be preferrable in clinical practice where time is rare. The availability of various language versions allows for the use of this questionnaire in international studies and in clinical practice when foreign language patients are being treated.</p

Attitudes towards using electronic health records of patients with psoriasis and dermatologists: a cross-sectional study

Background!#!Electronic health records (EHRs) offer various advantages for healthcare delivery, especially for chronic and complex diseases such as psoriasis. However, both patients' and physicians' acceptability is required for EHRs to unfold their full potential. Therefore, this study compares patients' and physicians' attitudes towards using EHRs in routine psoriasis care.!##!Methods!#!For the purpose of this study, a questionnaire was developed based on literature research and analyses of previously conducted focus groups. Participants completed either a paper-based or an electronic version of the questionnaire. Patient recruitment took place at an dermatological outpatient clinic and via several online pathways (patient associations, and social media). Physicians were recruited via a mailing list of a dermatological association and at a dermatological conference. Patients' and physicians' responses were compared using χ!##!Results!#!The study consisted of 187 patients and 44 dermatologists. Patients compared to physicians rated almost all potential EHR uses as significantly more important and expected significantly more potential benefits from EHRs.!##!Conclusions!#!Patients showed positive expectations towards using EHRs, whereas there was more scepticism in the physician sample. This aligns with previous findings. These differences illustrate the necessity to involve all stakeholders, especially patients and physicians, into the process of developing and implementing EHRs