Advertisement

Incontinentia pigmenti burden scale: designing a family burden questionnaire

  • Charles TaiebEmail author
  • Smail Hadj-Rabia
  • Jacques Monnet
  • Mohammed Bennani
  • Christine Bodemer
  • the Filière Maladies Rares en Dermatologie
Open Access
Research
  • 103 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Rare skin diseases

Abstract

Background

Incontentia pigmenti (IP) is a rare multisystem disorder of ectodermal origin comprising skin, dental, ocular and central nervous system features. Symptomatic treatments are adapted to each family according to the patient’s disability. Due to its rarity, the family IP burden in its broadest sense (psychological, social, economic and physical) has not yet been evaluated.

Aim

To design a questionnaire allowing assessing the family burden of IP (F’BoIP).

Method

A questionnaire was developed using a standardized methodology for designing quality of life questionnaires according to the following steps: conception, development, and validation. A multidisciplinary working group was designed, including experts in questionnaire development, dermatologists specialised in IP patient care and representatives of the French IP association. A cultural and linguistic validation into US English was conducted, based on the original French version.

Results

A 20-item conceptual questionnaire was generated. Subsequent confirmatory analyses produced a 20-item questionnaire grouped into four domains, demonstrating internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.93), reproducibility and high reliability. The F’BoIP questionnaire significantly correlated with other validated questionnaires: Family Dermatology Life Quality Index (F-DLQI), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and SF-12 mental and SF12 physical scores, indicating good external validity.

Conclusion

The F’BoIP questionnaire is the first specific tool to assess the family burden of IP and can be used by both family members of IP patients and by health care professionals. It is a valuable tool which evaluates medical and nonmedical strategies to improve the daily life of families affected by this orphan disease.

Keywords

Incontinentia pigmenti Disease burden Quality of life Orphan disease 

Abbreviations

BIC

Bayesian information criterion

CNS

Central nervous system

EMA

European Medicine Agency

FDA

Food and Drug Administration

F-DLQI

Family-Dermatology Life Quality Index

IP

Incontinentia pigmenti

IQWIG

Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen

MCS

Mental composite score

NICE

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

PCS

Physical composite score

PRO

Patient-reported outcome

PSS

Perceived Stress Scale

QoL

Quality of Life

RMSEA

Root mean square error of approximation

US

United States

Background

IP, or Bloch-Sulzberger syndrome, is a rare multisystem disorder of ectodermal origin comprising skin, dental, ocular and central nervous system features such as seizures, spastic paralysis, microcephaly and intellectual disability. IP is an X-linked dominant genodermatosis. It affects exclusively female patients and is usually lethal in utero in males [1]. The condition is caused by a genetic mutation in the IKBKG gene located on the X chromosome [2]. This gene is known as nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kappaB) essential modulator (NEMO), required for activating the transcription of factor NF-kappaB. The NF-kappaB pathway plays a central role in the expression of numerous genes pertaining to the immune system, including those involved in embryonic development and the development of bone, skin, mammary glands and the central nervous system (CNS). NF-kappaB activation is defective in IP cells.

Skin manifestations are the first diagnostic signs observed at birth or during early life. They are subdivided into four stages, comprising blisters, hyperkeratotic lesions, hyperpigmentation and, lastly, atrophic lesions [2]. These skin lesions follow Blaschko lines, virtual lines thought to represent the clonal boundaries of cells migrating from the neural crest. While lesions resolve spontaneously, residual hyper- or hypopigmentation can persist throughout life.

Clinical IP diagnosis is based on major and minor criteria associated with the skin lesions [2]. In addition, minor criteria include extracutaneous disease lesions [3, 4]. Its severity is related to ocular or neurological impairment. While no specific treatment is available, symptomatic measures are adapted to each family, according to the patient’s disability. Scientific literature has reported about 1000 cases of IP worldwide [3]..

To date, individual patient disease burden has already been evaluated in many skin diseases, such as psoriasis, infantile haemangioma, hereditary ichthyoses, atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, albinism and palmoplantar keratoderma [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11].

But, burden and reduced quality of life (QoL) are not only limited to patients, family members and caregivers may also be impacted, and in some situations the QoL of a partner or a parent may even be more impaired than that of the patient. As such, family members and caregivers may experience a major impact on their lives such as physical and mental exhaustion, social disruption, marital problems and financial implications [12, 13].

However, a few instruments to assess the impact of skin diseases on patients’ family members, such as the Family Dermatology Life Quality Index (F-DLQI), have been developed to date [12]. Existing instruments to assess family burden in dermatology have been recently reviewed by Sampogna et al. [14].

According to our literature search, no specific instrument exists to assess the burden and impact on QoL of parents of IP patients. However, such a tool would be useful for both parents of IP patients and clinicians in charge of patient management. The instrument could, to begin with, serve as a way of describing the IP parents’ perceptions. Secondly, it could be used as a tool in the follow-up of any changes in the patient’s medical and non-medical care. As part of its research activities, the French national network of expert centres for rare skin disorders has developed three different questionnaires for rare skin diseases [7, 10, 11].

The objective of the present study was to develop a self-administered questionnaire in order to assess the individual family burden in an IP patient cohort (F’BoIP). The second objective was to ensure that this questionnaire could be used by as many IP families as possible, following cultural and linguistic validation into US English based on the original F’BoIP.

Material and methods

The self-administered F’BoIP questionnaire was designed using a standard methodology for designing QoL questionnaires [15]. The methodology was based on three distinct phases: conception, development and validation. To ensure the questionnaire’s validity, a multidisciplinary working group was created including experts in the design and development of questionnaires, such as healthcare professionals (physicians and public-health specialists). Moreover, three “expert parents”, active members of the French Association of IP Patients, participated in this working group.

The questionnaire was built in a question and answer format. Response modalities were determined via expert consensus and took the form of a 7-point Likert scale, often used in self-completion questionnaires: “never” (0), “rarely” (1), “sometimes” (2), “often” (3), “very often” (4), “constantly” (5) and “not concerned” (0). To prevent confusion with any changes in perception due to symptoms related to comorbidities, the majority of questions included the wording “IP of your child.”

Conception

During the conceptual phase, a series of interviews with dermatologists, patient-reported outcome (PRO) experts and IP parents was conducted to comprehensively collect the parents’ perceptions and complaints as an initial wording report. Based on this initial wording report, the working group drew up a list of items that were reformulated as simple questions that would be easily understood. Nine interviews of patient family members (both parents, or only mother or father) were then conducted. Patients were selected in collaboration with the French association of IP patients which only proposed the questionnaire to parents of previously diagnosed IP patients. This ensured broad recruitment and the guarantee of diversity in patients in terms of geographical location, as well as age and sociological status. Thus, a semi-structured questionnaire was built. It discussed specific themes using closed-ended questions with a choice of predetermined answers. The final choice of questions was made by the working group who analysed the initial wording report semantically. The wording of each question was examined, thereby allowing regrouping questions if their similarities were proved too strong.

Development

During this phase the conceptual questionnaire was administered to a random sample of parents of IP patients (n = 114). This was followed by an exploratory factor analysis in order to reveal latent constructs, assigning each item to its respective domain or dimension.

A principal component analysis using a varimax orthogonal rotation was performed, to determine to which domain or dimension each question belonged [16]. Whenever questions could be linked to several dimensions, questions were allocated to the dimensions deemed to be the most semantically relevant by the expert working group.

Validation

Internal validation

To evaluate the questionnaire’s internal consistency, the homogeneity of the items in each dimension was tested using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient [8]. Scores in the higher ranges (>0.7) generally suggested that the items measured the same entity, indicating good homogeneity.

To demonstrate the questionnaire’s unidimensionality, a higher order factor confirmatory analysis was performed, aiming to confirm that dimensions could be combined into one single score. The model’s goodness-of-fit was assessed using several criteria, the Bentler comparative fit index and Bentler-Bonett non-normed fit index [17]. Criteria for a model’s goodness-of-fit were defined as a Bentler comparative fit and Bentler-Bonett non-normed fit index both >0.90. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was to be about 0.05 or at the very least <0.08, with 0.05 contained within the confidence interval.

External validation

To determine the questionnaire’s external validity, all participants were asked to complete three validated self-administered questionnaires: a 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF12), a F- DLQI questionnaire and a PSS [12, 18, 19].

The SF12 is a short version of the SF-36, a well-known quality of life tool. Based on 12 questions, a physical composite score (PCS) and mental composite score (MCS) were calculated.

The FDLQI is a questionnaire designed for adults (more than 16 years of age), family members or partners of patients (of any age) with any skin disease. The F-DLQI represents the sum of all scores (0–30); results can equally be expressed as percentages (0–100%).

The PSS, developed by Cohen et al. in 1983, is the most widely-used psychological instrument for measuring the perception of stress. Composed of 10 items, rated from “never” to “often”, the PSS measures the degree to which situations in one’s own life are perceived as stressful. The total score ranges from 10 to 50; the higher the score, the higher the stress.

Pearson correlation was calculated to assess the validity between the F’BoIP and the three other questionnaires.

All data were analysed using SAS software Version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) for Windows, with a significance level set at 0.05.

Test-retest validation

To assess reproducibility, test-retest analyses were carried out. Participants answered the questionnaire once and then again after a 10 to 12-day interval. Using these means, answers obtained were compared and the reliability of measurements confirmed.

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and cognitive debriefing

The validated methodology was applied to generate a US English-language version, according to the recommendations of the ISPOR task force [20]. This process, comprising a meticulous 9-step procedure, refined the translation while taking into account subtle nuances of the source document.

The different steps employed are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures [20]

Stage

Details

Preparation

Evaluation of the source text from a linguistic and cultural point of view including definition of concepts

Forward translations

Forward translation into the required target language by two independent translators

Reconciliation

Comparison of the two forward translations to provide the best adapted and to produce a draft versions of the text

Back translation

Translation of the draft forward translation back into the targeted language without reference to the original language

Back translation review

Comparison of the original text and the back translation to verify if changes are required to the draft forward version

Analysis and implementation of back translation review report

Analysis of the back translation review report to verify if changes are required to draft forward version

Pilot testing

Clinical review and cognitive debriefing

Review of cognitive debriefing or clinical review results

Review of results from the cognitive debriefing or clinical review to identify translation modifications necessary for improvement

Results

Conception

This phase involved IP patients’ parents who expressed and shared their perceptions and complaints regarding their children’s IP. The research resulted in an initial wording report. Several exchanges and one-to-one discussions between IP dermatologists, sociologists and experts in healthcare-related outcomes contributed to further consolidating this initial verbatim report. A 21-item questionnaire was then drawn up, thereby defining the conceptual questionnaire.

Development

The invitation to participate in this study was addressed to 114 families through the patient association. Of the 114 invited participant parties, 82 participated and activated the questionnaire, 63 agreed to participate after having read the information to participants and 2 did not complete the entire questionnaire. Thus, 61 questionnaires were evaluable for our study (Table 2). The total number of children affected was 71 as each responder could have had one or more children affected (52 responders had one child, 8 had 2 and one responder had 3 children affected).
Table 2

Socio-economic status and age of parents, disease manifestations and management details of IP-affected children

Items

N

Population

data missing

%

One of the parents with IP

26

61

0

42.6%

Living in a couple

31

61

0

50.8%

Living alone

20

61

0

32.8%

Average parents’ age

 

41.7 ± 12.8

  

High income group

16

61

0

26.2%

Low income group

8

61

0

13.1%

Unemployed

17

61

0

27.9%

Higher education qualification

18

61

0

29.5%

No qualifications

5

61

0

8.2%

100% health insurance cover

7

53

8

13.2%

Diagnosis made by a dermatologist

49

53

8

80.3%

Clinical signs

 ocular

52

61

9

85.3%

 dental

50

61

11

82.0%

 neurological

20

61

41

32.8%

 cutaneous

18

61

43

29.5%

Satisfied overall with care provided

27

57

4

47.4%

Satisfied with medical care provided by your physician

25

50

11

50.0%

Followed by an ophthalmologist

52

61

0

85.3%

Followed by a psychologist

12

61

0

19.7%

Followed by a speech therapist

17

61

0

27.9%

Followed by an occupational therapist

11

53

0

20.8%

Followed by a massage therapist

15

61

0

24.6%

Attended a therapy education programme

7

61

0

11,5%

Contact with an association

45

61

0

73.8%

In 26 of all cases, the mother was affected and in 7 cases a brother or a sister. The different scores were calculated for both groups: the 26 families where one of the parents was affected by IP compared to the 35 families with no affected parents. However, the sample was too small to show any significant difference. QoL was slightly more impacted if one of the parents was affected; in this group also stress, evaluated by the PSS questionnaire, appeared somewhat more pronounced.

Conversely, burden was less important if one of the parents was affected. This may be due to the fact that the affected parent anticipated potential difficulties resulting in a less importantly perceived burden (Table 3).
Table 3

Comparison of mean scores of newly developed F’BoIP questionnaire compared to F-DLQI, stress evaluated by PSS, and SF12 Mental and Physical dimension

 

New score

FDLQI

STRESS

SF12 Mental dimension

SF12 Physical dimension

GLOBAL

32.31 ± 19.28

6.62 ± 8.51

28.48 ± 8.34

50.64 ± 9.52

39.90 ± 11.83

N = 61

Parents not affected

33.83 ± 18.66

6.35 ± 8.57

27.00 ± 9.07

49.61 ± 9.39

42.04 ± 12.66

N = 35

Parents affected

30.27 ± 20.26

7.00 ± 8.59

30.58 ± 6.81

52.10 ± 9.71

36.86 ± 10.04

N = 26

p-value

0.2401

0.3890

0.0537

0.1654

0.0504

Exploratory factor analysis

The exploratory analysis was performed on 21 items in order to test the questionnaire’s robustness. According to standardized regression analysis, each group of questions was assigned a dimension, with four dimensions highlighted as follows (Table 4):
  • Dimension 1, with eight questions regarding social life and family life

  • Dimension 2, with six questions regarding professional life and renunciation

  • Dimension 3, with five questions regarding daily life

  • Dimension 4, with two questions regarding economic impact

Table 4

Loading of questions on factors after rotation

Loadings (correlation coefficients between questions and factors) were computed to allow facilitating the interpretability of factors. A loading of more 0.5 indicated that the couple question-factor was strongly related to each other. A question that did not have a loading of more 0.5 was not particularly related to any of the selected factors

Questions were reordered to show those corresponding to Factor 1 (blue), to Factor 2 (yellow), to Factor 3 (pink), and to Factor 4 (green). Factors were interpreted by looking at the common theme among questions that belong to the same factor

The confirmatory analysis showed that the question “Have you ever been affected by the looks others give your child because of his/her IP?” was non-relevant. This question was therefore removed, resulting in a final questionnaire of 20 items, grouped into four dimensions. Thus, only Dimension 1 was modified from eight to seven questions.

Validation

Internal validation

The questionnaire’s unidimensionality was confirmed by a higher order factor analysis, as shown in Table 4. The practical goodness-of-fit indices were acceptable, with a Bentler comparative fit index of 0.9598 and Bentler-Bonett non-normed fit index of 0.9526 (Table 5). Based on these indicators, the model was proven to be well-adjusted and well-fitted; the four dimensions could be grouped together into one single overall score, the F’BoIP.
Table 5

Model assessment parameters

 

Synthesis of adjustments made

Higher order factor criteria

Required

Obtained

Absolute index

Ratio of chi-sq to degrees of freedom

< 5

1.17

Absolute index

Pr > Khi-2

Not significant

0.0701

Absolute index

Normalized RMR

< 0.05

0.0778

Absolute index

Goodness of fit index (GFI)

> 0.8

0.805

Parsimonious index

Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)

> 0.8

0.7457

Parsimonious index

RMSEA estimate

About 0.05 and at the very least under 0.08.

0.0531

Parsimonious index

Inferior limit of the 90% RMSEA confidence interval (CI)

 

0

Parsimonious index

Superior limit of the 90% RMSEA confidence interval (CI)

 

0.0824

Parsimonious index

Akaike information criterion

The lowest value possible of the models tested

286.2104

Incremental index

Bentler comparative fit index

> 0.9

0.9598

Incremental index

Bentler-Bonett non-normed index

> 0.9

0.9526

RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation

Model-fit tests were applied to assess the model’s validity. Multiple models were tested, and those with lowest RMSEA and BIC were selected

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reached 0.93 for the entire questionnaire, reflecting its excellent internal coherence. Moreover, intra-dimensional coherences showed good reliability (α >  0.72).

External validation

The F’BoIP questionnaire highly correlated with the validated F-DLQI and PSS questionnaires, as well as the SF12 mental and SF12 physical scores (Table 6). Correlation coefficients between F’BoIP and the validated questionnaires were relatively high, confirming its external validity. F’BoIP’s correlation with the SF12 physical score was weaker than that obtained with the SF12 mental score.
Table 6

Correlations between scores

Pearson correlation coefficients, N = 58a

Probability > |r| under H0: Rho = 0

 

DLQI

PSS

SF12 mental score

SF12 physical score

F′ BoIP

F-DLQI

1

0.61318 (<.0001)

−0.58469(<.0001)

−0.59583(<.0001)

0.69608(<.0001)

PSS

0.61318 (<.0001)

1

−0.84159 (<.0001)

−0.38021 (0.0032)

0.63063 (<.0001)

SF12 mental score

−0.58469 (<.0001)

−0.84159 (<.0001)

1

0.23431 (0.0767)

−0.57441 (<.0001)

SF12 physical score

−0.59583 (<.0001)

−0.38021 (0.0032)

0.23431

1

−0.47374 (0.0002)

F′ BoIP

0.69608 (<.0001)

0.63063 (<.0001)

−0.57441 (<.0001)

−0.47374 (0.0002)

1

Correlation coefficients between F’BoIP and 4 four self-administrated questionnaires are shown

Significant p-values indicate that scores are strongly related to previously validated scores, confirming the external score validity

aCorrelation was assessed using data from 58 subjects (instead of 61), because of missing data for F-DLQI, SF12 and STRESS for three subjects

Moreover, the study confirmed the following correlations shown for previously developed questionnaires:
  • A closer correlation was expected and reached with the F-DLQI questionnaire and the PSS questionnaire (specific instruments) than with SF12 (generic instrument). Furthermore, a correlation with the F-DLQI, specific to dermatology, proved to be the closest.

  • A greater correlation was expected and shown with the mental dimension of SF12 than with the physical dimension. Indeed, the physical dimension has been affected to a limited extent as most of the families were quite young. Thus, QoL impairment concerned more a psychological fatigue rather than a physical fatigue.

Moreover, results obtained were in line with the COSMIN classification of correlations with external measures [8, 9].

Test-retest analysis

The test-retest reliability was assessed, based on test results from 20 subjects undergoing testing on both Day 0 and Day 10. Results demonstrated a very good reproducibility, with an intra-class correlation of each dimension exceeding 0.85 for each domain.

Cognitive debriefing, translation and cross-cultural adaptation

Cognitive debriefing did not result in any changes regarding the questions’ wording. The original French version of the F’BoIP questionnaire was translated and underwent linguistic and cultural validation into US English.

F’BoIP scoring

The total F’BoIP score was obtained by summing up scores for each of the 20 questions as defined in the aforementioned method description, with “never” or “not applicable”, which scored 0, “rarely” 1, “sometimes” 2, “often” 3, “very often” 4, and “constantly” 5.

A final, validated version of the questionnaire is given in Table 7.
Table 7

Final validated version of the IP Family Burden questionnaire

 

Score from 0 to 5

1

Have you ever felt that it is unfair when thinking about your child having incontinentia pigmenti?

 

2

Have you noticed family tension due to your child’s incontinentia pigmenti?

 

3

Have you noticed marital problems due to your child’s incontinentia pigmenti?

 

4

Have you been embarrassed by the glances of others due to his/her incontinentia pigmenti?

 

5

Due to your child’s incontinentia pigmenti, have you felt the need to keep to yourself?

 

6

Have you experienced a feeling of guilt due to your child’s incontinentia pigmenti?

 

7

Have you been forced to reconsider your future plans because of your child’s incontinentia pigmenti?

 

8

Have you ever hesitated to buy any medication that is not covered by your insurance?

 

9

Have you had to give up dental care due to your child’s incontinentia pigmenti?

 

10

Have you behaved in a neglectful way toward your other children because of your child’s incontinentia pigmenti?

 

11

Have you been distracted at work because of your child’s incontinentia pigmenti?

 

12

Have you needed to miss work to take your child to the doctor?

 

13

Have you had to stop working due to your child’s incontintentia pigmenti?

 

14

Do you think you have “overprotected” your child due to his/her incontintentia pigmenti?

 

15

Has your child’s incontintentia pigmenti upset your daily life?

 

16

Has facing the required care support (psychologists, orthoptics, psychomotor therapy) made you feel mentally drained?

 

17

Does the care that you have to give tire you out?

 

18

Have you been hurt by the teasing your children have experienced from other children?

 

19

Have you ever had the impression that your child’s incontintentia pigmenti is increasingly expensive?

 

20

Have you had to dedicate a portion of your budget to cover the costs of care for your child?

 

With: 0 = never/not applicable, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = very often, 5 = constantly

Discussion

Skin diseases do not only psychosocially affect the patient, but also impact the entire family’s functioning. Today, the individual disease burden is increasingly investigated. “Individual burden” accounts for the broadest aspects of disease-related disability, covering psychological, physical, social and economic factors, simultaneously taking into account QoL, community integration, organization of everyday life, as well as medical resource consumption. Using questionnaires may allow evaluating this overarching burden, especially among patients with a particular disease [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11].

IP impacts the family’s lifestyle and quality of life heavily. As a result, family members have to reorganize their life, overcome the stress of diagnostic procedures and integrate the notion of chronicity and absence of curative treatments into their daily life.

Based on advances made in QoL research over the last decades, health-care professionals and regulatory agencies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA), currently face complex issues related to the development of health-related quality of life claims for both product labelling and promotion [6]. In this context, Leidy et al. generated recommendations for the healthcare industry to ensure that all health-related QoL claims are based on rigorously-designed studies, with appropriate methodology and instruments [19]. Development in the clinical research field has led to the widespread use of questionnaires and this trend is most likely to continue in the near future. The reason for this is the increasing relevance of data that are both closer to clinical practice and increasingly needed to achieve market access. At present, QoL, patient wellbeing, and patient-centred outcomes are requested by reimbursement agencies, such as NICE in the UK and IQWIG in Germany [9].

To our knowledge, no specific instrument exists that is able to assess the overall burden of parents of children with IP. This paper provides an easy-to-use questionnaire which assesses the individual disease burden of parents of IP patients. The questionnaire is currently available in French and US English and can be translated and culturally and linguistically validated into other languages, such as German, Spanish, etc. The 9-step methodology required to generate linguistically-validated and cross-culturally-adapted F’BoIP versions into other languages is well-established. With its 20 items and six possible answers for each question, our questionnaire is relatively short, understandable and easy to use. F’BoIP is a robust tool with an internal consistency exceeding the minimum reliability criterion of 0.90 for individual analysis.

The main limitation of our study is the relatively small sample size of 61 parents. However, as IP is a rare disease, a small sample size is not surprising.

We believe that the objective evaluation of the IP burden will enhance communication between patients, parents and healthcare providers, thereby improving information transfer and creating a real opportunity for practitioners to gain better understanding of certain issues brought up by the patients or their families.

Moreover, F’BoIP may allow the development of new patient management approaches and the improvement of existing patients’ health, care and daily-life.

Conclusions

F’BoIP demonstrates feasibility, validity and discriminant reliability. It can therefore be used to understand the multidimensional nature of IP better, in addition to the individual burden of the parents of patients suffering from this condition. Moreover, it may play a role in the decision-making process. Additional research to develop a version of the instrument for children to use in the future is currently ongoing.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the patient association for helping and supporting this project. Moreover, the authors acknowledge the editing assistance of Karl Patrick Göritz, SMWS Scientific and Medical Writing Services, France.

Authors’ contributions

CT, SH and CB conceived the study, participated in its design and coordination and helped drafting the manuscript. CB, and CT participated in the design of the study and conceptual phase. MB performed the statistical analysis. All authors read, commented on, and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The project has received public funding from Fimarad (French network of rare skin disorders, Necker Hospital, Paris, France).

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The questionnaire construction was carried out as part of the RADICO-FARD project, which obtained a favorable opinion from the Committee for the Protection of Individuals (CPP Ouest V, Rennes) on July 31, 2017.

The questionnaire was proposed by the patient association, and at no time did the authors of the project or the persons in charge of the analgesia statistics know the identity of the responders.

There was no way to make a connection between the answers obtained and the person who answered the questionnaire.

The respondents were provided with an information sheet before giving their consent. This information sheet as well as the consent form clearly explained the purpose of the project and guaranteed the anonymity of the responses.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Smahi A, Courtois G, Vabres P, et al. Genomic rearrangement in NEMO impairs NF-kappaB activation and is a cause of incontinentia pigmenti. The international Incontinentia Pigmenti (IP) consortium. Nature. 2000;405:466–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alshenqiti A, Nashabat M, AlGhoraibi H, et al. Pulmonary hypertension and vasculopathy in incontinentia pigmenti: a case report. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2017;13:629–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Landy SJ, Donnai D. Incontinentia pigmenti (Bloch-Sulzberger syndrome). J Med Genet. 1993;30:53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Minic S, Trpinac D, Obradovic M. Incontinentia pigmenti diagnostic criteria update. Clin Genet. 2014;85:536–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meyer N, Paul C, Feneron D, et al. Psoriasis: an epidemiological evaluation of disease burden in 590 patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010;24:1075–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boccara O, Meni C, Leaute-Labreze C, et al. Haemangioma family burden: creation of a specific questionnaire. Acta Derm Venereol. 2015;95:78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dufresne H, Hadj-Rabia S, Méni C, et al. Family burden in inherited ichthyosis: creation of a specific questionnaire. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taieb A, Boralevi F, Seneschal J, et al. Atopic dermatitis burden scale for adults: development and validation of a new assessment tool. Acta Derm Venereol. 2015;95:700–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salzes C, Abadie S, Seneschal J, et al. The Vitiligo impact patient scale (VIPs): development and validation of a Vitiligo burden assessment tool. J Invest Dermatol. 2016;136:52–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morice-Picard F, Taieb C, Marti A, et al. Burden of albinism: development and validation of a burden assessment tool. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13:162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hickman G, Bodemer C, Bourrat E, et al. Palmoplantar keratoderma: creating a disease burden questionnaire. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33:e291–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Basra MK, Sue-Ho R, Finlay AY. The family dermatology life quality index: measuring the secondary impact of skin disease. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156:528–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rees J, O'Boyle C, MacDonagh R. Quality of life: impact of chronic illness on the partner. J R Soc Med. 2001;94:563–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sampogna F, Finlay AY, Salek SS, et al. Measuring the impact of dermatological conditions on family and caregivers: a review of dermatology-specific instruments. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:1429–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seidenberg M, Haltiner A, Taylor MA, et al. Development and validation of a multiple ability self-report questionnaire. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1994;16:93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaiser HF. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Pyschometrika. 1958;23:187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107:238–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lim LL, Fisher JD. Use of the 12-item short-form (SF-12) health survey in an Australian heart and stroke population. Qual Life Res. 1999;8:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24:385–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8:94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.French Rare Diseases Healthcare Network Department of DermatologyNecker Enfants Malades Hospital Paris, APHPParisFrance
  2. 2.FIMARAD, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, APHPParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of Dermatology, Reference Center for Genodermatoses (MAGEC)Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital (AP-HP) and Imagine Institute, Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité UniversityParisFrance
  4. 4.French Association of Incontentia Pigmentosa PatientsParisFrance
  5. 5.QualeesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations