Why quality of life measurement is important in dermatology clinical practice: An expert-based opinion statement by the EADV Task Force on Quality of Life.
The aim of this study was to describe the many ways in which quality of life (QoL) measurement may potentially be advantageous in routine clinical dermatology practice. Thirteen members of the EADV Task Force on Quality of Life, eight dermatologists, three health psychologists, one epidemiologist and one pharmacoepidemiologist, independently listed all of the ways they thought this may be advantageous. A total of 108 different ways of using QoL information in clinical practice were suggested (median per participant = 8, range = 4-15), and were classified into 20 descriptive groups. These were sorted into the following five categories: inform clinical decisions, clinician-patient communication, awareness of skin disease burden, informing the consultation and clinical service administration. The wide range of potential benefits identified may not only encourage clinicians to use these measures but also highlights many areas requiring evidence to establish the true value of routine use of QoL measures.
Division of Infection and Immunity, Department of Dermatology and Wound Healing, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
A Y
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2143-1646
AY
Finlay
Department of Pharmacy, Pharmacology and Postgraduate Medicine, School of Life & Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
M S
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4612-5699
MS
Salek
Clinical Epidemiology Unit, IDI-IRCCS FLMM, Rome, Italy.
D
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0167-7617
D
Abeni
Department of Psychology, Aragon Health Sciences Institute, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
L
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1917-6906
L
Tomás-Aragonés
Dutch Skin Foundation, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.|Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
O D
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8095-4100
OD
van Cranenburgh
Health, Medical, and Neuropsychology unit, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
A W M
AW
Evers
Department of Dermatology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark.|Health Sciences Faculty, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
G B E
GB
Jemec
Oslo Center for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
D
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0305-3146
D
Linder
Dali Medical, Dermatology, Bucharest, Romania.
L
L
Manolache
Department of Dermatology, Alcañiz Hospital, Aragon Health Sciences Institute, Zaragoza, Spain.
S E
SE
Marrón
VU University Medical Center, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C A C
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0956-3788
CA
Prinsen
North Karelia Central Hospital, Joensuu, Finland.
P
P
Susitaival
Department of Dermatology and Venereology, National Medical University, Kiev, Ukraine.
P V
PV
Chernyshov
D000066491:Clinical Decision-Making; D003142:Communication; D017281:Cost of Illness; D003880:Dermatology / Q000458:organization & administration; D006801:Humans; D000070659:Patient Comfort; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D011379:Prognosis; D011788:Quality of Life; D012017:Referral and Consultation; D012871:Skin Diseases / Q000150:complications* / Q000523:psychology*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires