Search

In the last decade, the importance of the measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has grown significantly. Today, HRQoL measurement is generally considered to be important in clinical trials, in the assessment of disease severity, in patient management and in the field of health economics. Therefore, a good understanding of the concept of HRQoL and its measurement instruments is a prerequisite for both researchers and clinicians. The European Academy for Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Taskforce on Quality of Life encourages the application of HRQoL instruments in research and clinical practice, and with this manuscript, the Taskforce aims to contribute to the quality of this application. In dermatology, a large number of HRQoL instruments exist and herewith, we summarize the most commonly used generic and dermatology-specific HRQoL instruments. Information is given on the most important psychometric characteristics of these instruments, including: scale structure, reliability, validity and responsiveness. Furthermore, a flow chart is provided to support researchers and clinicians in selecting an existing instrument or, in case an appropriate instrument does not exist, in finding alternative solutions. The present manuscript is the first of a series of manuscripts to be written on behalf of the EADV Taskforce on Quality of Life, aiming to contribute to the scientific knowledge and measurement of patient reported outcomes in dermatological research and practice., (© 2013 The Authors Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology © 2013 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Follow-up of melanoma patients has been a continuing issue for discussion in the past years partly due to ever increasing incidence of this disease, as well as the lack of agreement regarding the reasons for, and the frequency of follow-up. Patients' perspectives are often not included in this continuing discussion on follow-up of melanoma patients., Objective: To examine to what extent follow-up was experienced, according to the guideline of 2005, by physicians and melanoma patients in a Dutch population from the south-east area of the Netherlands. The patient's perspective and satisfaction over said follow-up shall also be taken into account., Methods: Follow-up among melanoma survivors was investigated and compared with the recommendations of the current Dutch national guideline. All 699 melanoma patients registered at the Eindhoven Cancer Registry (between 1998 and 2008), and treated in 3 regional hospitals, were contacted via postal mail. The survey questioned about treatment, symptoms, impact on daily life and follow-up. Patients with multiple melanomas (n = 16) were excluded., Results: Response rate was 80%, 418 patients were still under surveillance for their melanoma. The average time since diagnoses was 4 years, 71% had stage I melanoma. Almost 80% of patients with a Breslow thickness <1 mm, reported more frequent follow-up visits than the guideline recommends. Only 5% of the patients wanted to reduce their follow-up frequency. Eighty percent of patients were under supervision of a dermatologist: physical examination (25%), lymph node palpation (11%) and/or scar inspection (20%) did not regularly occur. These proportions were significantly higher among other specialism., Conclusion: Follow-up frequency was higher than recommended by the current melanoma guideline in a large group of patients, mainly those with lower Breslow thickness., (© 2011 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology © 2011 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)