Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Appearance: Definition of Appearance-Pain (App-Pain) and Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used in Literature

  • Original Article
  • Special Topics
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The objectives of the current study were: (1) to perform a systematic review of the existing scientific literature on appearance and any subsequently related disorders and (2) to research in the literature the correlation between the role of appearance and patient’s disease.

Materials and Methods

A systematic review protocol was developed a priori in accordance with the Preferred Reporting for Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidance. A multistep search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Ebase, CINAHL, PsychINFO and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies on patient satisfaction, quality of life, and body image.

Results

Our search generated a total of 347 articles. We performed a systematic review of the 18 studies, which had sufficient data and met all inclusion criteria. All studies identified from the literature review were assessed to determine the utilization of validated patient satisfaction questionnaires. The questionnaires were analyzed by reviewers to assess adherence to the rules of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. We identified 27 individual questionnaires. We summarized development and validation characteristics and content of the 27 validated measures used in the studies.

Conclusions

This is the first systematic review to identify and critically appraise patient-reported outcome measures for appearance and body image using internationally accepted criteria. DAS59 was deemed to have adequate levels of methodological and psychometric evidence. We also introduced the concept of Appearance-Pain which consists of the recomposed systematic view of the experimental indicators of suffering, linked to one of the dimensions of appearance.

Level of Evidence III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Health USDO, Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation, Research USDOH et al (2006) Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4(1):79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Karimi M, Brazier J (2016) Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: what is the difference? PharmacoEconomics 34(7):645–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson C (2008) The end of theory: the data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired Mag 16(7):16-07

    Google Scholar 

  4. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm. Accessed 12 Mar 2018

  5. Parnas J, Møller P, Kircher T, Thalbitzer J, Jansson L, Handest P, Zahavi D (2005) EASE: examination of anomalous self-experience. Psychopathology 38:236–258 Epub 2005 Sep 20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4(1):1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and 20 explanation. BMJ 349:g7647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(4):264–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Higgins J, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1. 0 [Updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration

  10. Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, de Vet HCW (2009) Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 18(8):1115–1123

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2006) Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. FDA web site. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index

  12. Rasch G (1960) Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Danish Institute for Education Research, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cash TF, Melnyk SE, Hrabosky JI (2004) The assessment of body image investment: an extensive revision of the appearance schemas inventory. Int J Eat Disord 35:305–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Harris DL, Carr AT (2001) The Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS59): a new psychometric scale for the evaluation of patients with disfigurements and aesthetic problems of appearance. Br J Plast Surg 54:216–222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosen JC, Reiter J (1996) Development of the body dysmorphic disorder examination. Behav Res Ther 34:755e66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Phillips KA (1996) The broken mirror: understanding and treating body dysmorphic disorder. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  17. Phillips KA, Hollander E, Rasmussen SA, Aronowitz BR (1997) A severity rating scale for body dysmorphic disorder: development, reliability, and validity of a modified version of the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. Psychopharmacol Bull 33:17–22

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Oosthuizen P, Lambert T, Castle DJ (1998) Dysmorphic concern: prevalence and associations with clinical variables. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 32:129–132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaymak Y, Taner E, Şimşek I (2009) Body dysmorphic disorder in university students with skin diseases compared with healthy controls. Acta Derm Venereol 89:281–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. He W, Zheng Q, Ji Y, Shen C, Zhu Q, Wang W (2017) Development of a body image concern scale using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses in Chinese university students. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 13:1419–1425

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosenberg M (1965) Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Hopwood P, Fletcher I, Lee A, Al Ghazal S (2001) A body image scale for use with cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 37:189–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Secord PF, Jourard SM (1953) The appraisal of body-cathexis: body-cathexis and the self. J Consult Psychol 17:343–347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cusumano DL, Thompson JK (1997) Body image and body shape ideals in magazines: exposure, awareness, and internalization. Sex Roles 37:701–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Oliver KK, Thelen MH (1996) Children’s perceptions of peer influence on eating concerns. Behav Ther 27:25–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nguyen J, Popovic M, Chow E, Cella D, Beaumont JL, Chu D, Di Giovanni J, Lam H, Pulenzas N, Bottomley A (2015) EORTC QLQ-BR23 and FACT-B for the assessment of quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a literature review. J Comp Eff Res 4:157–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cloninger CR, Przybeck TR, Svrakic DM (1991) The Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire: U.S. normative data. Psychol Rep 69:1047–1057

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cuzzolaro M, Vetrone G, Marano G, Garfinkel PE (2006) The Body Uneasiness Test (BUT): development and validation of a new body image assessment scale. Eat Weight Disord 11:1–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stanford MS, Mathias CW, Dougherty DM, Lake SL, Anderson NE, Patton JH (2009) Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: an update and review. Pers Individ Differ 47:385–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Augustin M, Zschocke I, Sommer B, Sattler G (1999) Sociodemographic profile and satisfaction with treatment of patients undergoing liposuction in tumescent anesthesia. Dermatol Surg 25:480–483

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Brown TA, Cash TF, Mikulka PJ (1990) Attitudinal body-image assessment: factor analysis of the Body-Self Relations Questionnaire. J Pers Assess 55:135–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 305:160–164

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Henderson-King D, Henderson-King E (2005) Acceptance of cosmetic surgery: scale development and validation. Body Image 2:137–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Avalos L, Tylka TL, Wood-Barcalow N (2005) The Body Appreciation Scale: development and psychometric evaluation. Body Image 2:285–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Thompson JK, van den Berg P, Roehrig M, Guarda AS, Heinberg LJ (2004) The Sociocultural Attitudes Toward Appearance Questionnaire (SATAQ- 3): development and validation. Int J Eat Disord 35:293–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Swami V, Salem N, Furnham A, Tovée MJ (2008) Initial examination of the validity and reliability of the female Photographic Figure Rating Scale for body image assessment. Personality Individ Differ 44:1752–1761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cash TF (2004) Body image: past, present, and future. Body Image. 1:1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Di Stefano N (2017) The Idea of Beauty and Its Biases: critical Notes on the Aesthetics of Plastic Surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5:e1523

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Buetow S, Wallis K (2017) The Beauty in Perfect Imperfection. J Med Humanit. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-017-9500-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Harth W (2017) Was ist Schönheit? Manifest einer ästhetischen Charaktermedizin [What is beauty? Manifest for an aesthetic character medicine]. Hautarzt 68:950–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00105-017-4051-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Barone M, Cogliandro A, La Monaca G, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2015) Cognitive investigation study of patients admitted for cosmetic surgery: information, expectations, and consent for treatment. Arch Plast Surg. 42:46–51

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Lasch KE, Marquis P, Vigneux M, Abetz L, Arnould B, Bayliss M, Crawford B, Rosa K (2010) PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res 19:1087–1096

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA, Baker SB, Badia L, Schwitzer JA, Pusic AL (2016) Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the FACE-Q Scales for Patients Undergoing Rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 18:27–35

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Pusic AL, Chen CM, Cano S, Klassen A, McCarthy C, Collins ED, Cordeiro PG (2007) Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:823–837

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P. (2016) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. Oct 31. [Epub ahead of print]

  46. Barone M., Cogliandro A., Morelli Coppola M., Cassotta G., Di Stefano N., Tambone V., Persichetti P (2017). Patient-reported outcome measures following gynecomastia correction: a systematic review. Eur J Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-017-1375-y [Epub ahead of print]

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2017) A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Transsexual Surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg 41:700–713

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Chua AS, DeSantis SM, Teo I, Fingeret MC (2015) Body image investment in breast cancer patients undergoing reconstruction: taking a closer look at the Appearance Schemas Inventory-Revised. Body Image. 13:33–37

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Cogliandro A, Persichetti P, Ghilardi G, Moss TP, Barone M, Piccinocchi G, Ricci G, Vitali M, Giuliani A, Tambone V (2016) How to assess appearance distress and motivation in plastic surgery candidates: Italian validation of Derriford Appearance Scale 59 (DAS 59). Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 20:3732–3737

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Moss TP, Cogliandro A, Pennacchini M, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2013) Appearance distress and dysfunction in the elderly: international contrasts across Italy and the UK using DAS59. Aesthetic Plast Surg 37:1187–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Felix GA, de Brito MJ, Nahas FX, Tavares H, Cordás TA, Dini GM, Ferreira LM (2014) Patients with mild to moderate body dysmorphic disorder may benefit from rhinoplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67:646–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen GWJA, Ingels KJAO (2018) Does self-consciousness of appearance influence postoperative satisfaction in rhinoplasty? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71:79–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Jacono A, Chastant RP, Dibelius G (2016) Association of Patient Self-esteem With Perceived Outcome After Face-lift Surgery. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 18:42–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Joseph AW, Ishii L, Joseph SS, Smith JI, Su P, Bater K, Byrne P, Boahene K, Papel I, Kontis T, Douglas R, Nelson CC, Ishii M (2017) Prevalence of Body Dysmorphic Disorder and Surgeon Diagnostic Accuracy in Facial Plastic and Oculoplastic Surgery Clinics. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 19:269–274

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Kelsall JE, McCulley SJ, Brock L, Akerlund MTE, Macmillan RD (2017) Comparing oncoplastic breast conserving surgery with mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: case-matched patient reported outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 70:1377–1385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. van den Elzen ME, Versnel SL, Duivenvoorden HJ, Mathijssen IM (2012) Assessing nonacceptance of the facial appearance in adult patients after complete treatment of their rare facial cleft. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36:938–945

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Nerini A, Matera C, Stefanile C (2014) Psychosocial predictors in consideration of cosmetic surgery among women. Aesthetic Plast Surg 38:461–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Onesti MG, Maruccia M, Di Taranto G, Albano A, Soda G, Ballesio L, Scuderi N (2017) Clinical, histological, and ultrasound follow-up of breast reconstruction with one-stage muscle-sparing “wrap” technique: a single-center experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 70:1527–1536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Pavan C, Marini M, De Antoni E, Scarpa C, Brambullo T, Bassetto F, Mazzotta A, Vindigni V (2017) Psychological and Psychiatric Traits in Post-bariatric Patients Asking for Body-Contouring Surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg 41:90–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Reavey PL, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, McCarthy C, Scott A, Rubin JP, Shermak M, Pusic AL (2011) Measuring quality of life and patient satisfaction after body contouring: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Aesthet Surg J. 31:807–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Saariniemi KM, Helle MH, Salmi AM, Peltoniemi HH, Charpentier P, Kuokkanen HO (2012) The effects of aesthetic breast augmentation on quality of life, psychological distress, and eating disorder symptoms: a prospective study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36:1090–1095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Song P, Patel NB, Gunther S, Li CS, Liu Y, Lee CY, Kludt NA, Patel KB, Ali MR, Wong MS (2016) Body Image & Quality of Life: changes With Gastric Bypass and Body Contouring. Ann Plast Surg 76(Suppl 3):S216–S221

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Swami V, Campana AN, Ferreira L, Barrett S, Harris AS, Tavares Mda C (2011) The Acceptance of Cosmetic Surgery Scale: initial examination of its factor structure and correlates among Brazilian adults. Body Image. 8:179–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. van de Grift TC, Kreukels BP, Elfering L, Özer M, Bouman MB, Buncamper ME, Smit JM, Mullender MG (2016) Body Image in Transmen: multidimensional Measurement and the Effects of Mastectomy. J Sex Med 13:1778–1786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Wang Q, Cao C, Guo R, Li X, Lu L, Wang W, Li S (2016) Avoiding Psychological Pitfalls in Aesthetic Medical Procedures. Aesthetic Plast Surg 40:954–961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Johnson Steven (2001) Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants. Scribner, Brains, p 19

    Google Scholar 

  67. Tambone V, Ghilardi G (2012) Conscious and cooperative reduction. The Therapeutic Clinic 163(3):e133–e143

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors do not have any commercial associations that might pose or create a conflict of interest with information presented in this communication. No intramural or extramural funding supported any aspect of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy

    M. Barone, A. Cogliandro, R. Salzillo & P. Persichetti

  2. Institute of Philosophy of Scientific and Technological Activity, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    V. Tambone

  3. Research Group “To be and to appear: Objective indication to Plastic Surgery” of Campus Bio-Medico University in Rome, Rome, Italy

    M. Barone, A. Cogliandro, V. Tambone & P. Persichetti

Authors
  1. M. Barone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Cogliandro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Salzillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. V. Tambone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Persichetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Barone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barone, M., Cogliandro, A., Salzillo, R. et al. The Role of Appearance: Definition of Appearance-Pain (App-Pain) and Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used in Literature. Aesth Plast Surg 42, 1399–1409 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1158-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1158-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation