MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES OF THE PATIENT-REPORTED IMPACT OF DERMATOLOGICAL DISEASES (PRIDD): A GLOBAL STUDY OF PATIENTS WITH ALOPECIA AREATA
Author(s)
Caroline F. Z. Stuhlmann, PhD1, Allison FitzGerald, BA, BS2, Rachael Pattinson, BSc, MSc, PhD3, Neuza da Silva Burger, BSc, MSc, PhD4, Chris Bundy, BSc, MSc, PhD3, Matthias Augustin, BSc, MSc, PhD, MD5.
1Institute for Medical Research In Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, 2Director of Operations, GlobalSkin, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 3Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom, 4Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, 5University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
1Institute for Medical Research In Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, 2Director of Operations, GlobalSkin, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 3Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom, 4Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, 5University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
OBJECTIVES: Understanding impact of skin disease from a patient perspective is crucial for improving health care in dermatology. Although the Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure is generically valid and reliable according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), it has not yet been evaluated among specific skin disease groups. This study psychometrically examined PRIDD among participants with alopecia areata (AA).
METHODS: Two online global surveys were administered with a 6-week interval between Survey 1 and 2. Participants with self-reported AA (N = 156, 90.4% female, 48.6 ± 14.1 years, n at Survey 2 = 57) provided sociodemographic and clinical information, and completed PRIDD (16 items; physical, life responsibilities, psychological and social impact domains), quality of life, health status, and depressive and anxiety symptoms measures. Additionally, participants reported Global Perceived Effect (GPE), rating changes in the impact of their AA since Survey 1. Analyses examined internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, criterion and construct validity, responsiveness, and distribution-based minimally important change (MIC).
RESULTS: PRIDD had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92). Criterion validity was supported by strong associations between PRIDD and DLQI, ρ = .79. Construct validity was partially confirmed: 15 of 19 hypotheses (79%) for convergent validity were met, whereas only 3 of 6 (50%) for discriminant validity were met. Test-retest reliability was demonstrated by significant correlations between Survey 1 and 2 total scores (ICC = .82). Responsiveness could not be examined due to small sample size. Floor and ceiling effects were absent. MIC of ≥ -3.11 points in the PRIDD total score may reflect clinically significant improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: PRIDD was reliable and valid for assessing impact of AA on patients’ lives. Responsiveness was not assessed, but PRIDD detected meaningful changes, supporting its clinical utility in patient care and clinical trials.
METHODS: Two online global surveys were administered with a 6-week interval between Survey 1 and 2. Participants with self-reported AA (N = 156, 90.4% female, 48.6 ± 14.1 years, n at Survey 2 = 57) provided sociodemographic and clinical information, and completed PRIDD (16 items; physical, life responsibilities, psychological and social impact domains), quality of life, health status, and depressive and anxiety symptoms measures. Additionally, participants reported Global Perceived Effect (GPE), rating changes in the impact of their AA since Survey 1. Analyses examined internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, criterion and construct validity, responsiveness, and distribution-based minimally important change (MIC).
RESULTS: PRIDD had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92). Criterion validity was supported by strong associations between PRIDD and DLQI, ρ = .79. Construct validity was partially confirmed: 15 of 19 hypotheses (79%) for convergent validity were met, whereas only 3 of 6 (50%) for discriminant validity were met. Test-retest reliability was demonstrated by significant correlations between Survey 1 and 2 total scores (ICC = .82). Responsiveness could not be examined due to small sample size. Floor and ceiling effects were absent. MIC of ≥ -3.11 points in the PRIDD total score may reflect clinically significant improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: PRIDD was reliable and valid for assessing impact of AA on patients’ lives. Responsiveness was not assessed, but PRIDD detected meaningful changes, supporting its clinical utility in patient care and clinical trials.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
PCR257
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Instrument Development, Validation, & Translation, Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Disease
Systemic Disorders/Conditions (Anesthesia, Auto-Immune Disorders (n.e.c.), Hematological Disorders (non-oncologic), Pain)