Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Body-QoL®: Measuring Patient Reported Outcomes in Body Contouring Surgery Patients

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 16 May 2014

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to design a new patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to measure patient satisfaction after body-contouring procedures such as liposculpture, abdominoplasty, body-lift, thigh-lift, and arm-lift.

Methods

Phase 1a involved an extensive literature review, 16 in-depth patient interviews, and expert focus groups with 5 plastic surgeons to develop a conceptual framework for the outcomes deemed important for body image and preliminary PRO instruments. In phase 1b, the preliminary instrument was tested with a second independent sample of 29 patients with whom simple interviews were additionally performed. In the second sample, scale reliability was calculated.

Results

In phase 1a, the domains identified for the conceptual framework included clothing and body image, sexual and affective life, self-image and self-esteem, social relationships, and physical symptoms. In phase 1b, the scale internal consistency was 91.5 %.

Conclusions

When psychometric evaluation is completed, the Body-Shape-Related Quality of Life instrument and its subscales will provide a reliable tool for plastic surgeons, researchers, and patients to use in measuring the impact and effectiveness of body-contouring procedures from the patient’s perspective.

Level of Evidence IV

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 journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-B

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zimerman A (2013) Evidence-based medicine: a short history of a modern medical movement. Virtual Mentor 15:71–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jeffrey A, Timothy C (2005) History and development of evidence-based medicine. World J Surg 29:547–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Manary MP, Boulding W, Staelin R, Glickman SWN (2013) The patient experience and health outcomes. Engl J Med 368:201–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sackett DL, Straus S, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes B (2000) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  5. Saldanha OR, Pinto EB, Matos WN Jr, Lucon RL, Magalhães F, Bello EM (2001) Lipoabdominoplasty without undermining. Aesthet Surg J 21:518–526

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lockwood TE (2004) Maximizing aesthetics in lateral-tension abdominoplasty and body lifts. Clin Plast Surg 31:523–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Andrades P, Prado A, Danilla S, Guerra C, Benitez S, Sepulveda S, Sciarraffia C, De Carolis V (2007) Progressive tension sutures in the prevention of postabdominoplasty seroma: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:935–946

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hurwitz DJ, Holland SW (2006) The L brachioplasty: an innovative approach to correct excess tissue of the upper arm, axilla, and lateral chest. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:403–411

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Richter DF, Stoff A (2011) The scarpa lift: a novel technique for minimal invasive medial thigh lifts. Obes Surg 21:1975–1980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Prado A, Andrades P, Danilla S, Leniz P, Castillo P, Gaete F (2006) A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial comparing laser-assisted lipoplasty with suction-assisted lipoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1032–1045

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nagy MW, Vanek PF Jr (2012) A multicenter, prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled clinical trial comparing VASER-assisted lipoplasty and suction-assisted lipoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:681–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hurwitz D, Smith D (2012) Treatment of overweight patients by radiofrequency-assisted liposuction (RFAL) for aesthetic reshaping and skin tightening. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36:62–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pusic A, Klassen A, Scott A, Klok J, Cordeiro P, Cano S (2009) Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:345–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, Snell L, Pusic A (2010) Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg 26:303–309

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cuevas P, Calderón M, Erazo C, Benítez S, Andrades P, Sepúlveda S, Danilla S (2013) Mamoplastía de reducción: resultados desde la perspectiva del paciente. Validación lingüística y psicométrica del breast Q reduction and mastopexy module instrument. Rev Chilena Cirugía 65:146–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust (2002) Assessing health status and quality of life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11:193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Patient reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Retrieved xxxx at www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm071975.pdf. 2006

  18. 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 

  19. Carr T, Moss T, Harris D (2005) The DAS24: a short form of the Derriford Appearance Scale DAS59 to measure individual responses to living with problems of appearance. Br J Health Psychol 10:285–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

  21. Cooper P, Taylor M, Cooper Z, Fairbaum G (1987) The development and validation of the body shape questionnaire. Int J Eat Disord 6:485–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Niero M, Martin M, Finger T, Lucas R, Mear I, Wild D, Glauda L, Patrick DL (2002) A new approach to multicultural item generation in the development of two obesity-specific measures: the Obesity and Weight Loss Quality of Life (OWLQOL) questionnaire and the Weight-Related Symptom Measure (WRSM). Clin Ther 24:690–700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kolotkin RL, Head S, Hamilton M, Tse CK (1995) Assessing impact of weight on quality of life. Obes Res 3:49–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kolotkin RL, Head S, Brookhart A (1997) Construct validity of the impact of weight on quality of life questionnaire. Obes Res 5:434–441

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD, Kosloski KD, Williams GR (2001) Development of a brief measure to assess quality of life in obesity. Obes Res 9:102–111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD (2002) Psychometric evaluation of the impact of weight on quality of life-lite questionnaire (IWQOL-lite) in a community sample. Qual Life Res 11:157–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Coriddi MR, Koltz PF, Chen R, Gusenoff JA (2011) Changes in quality of life and functional status following abdominal contouring in the massive weight loss population. Plast Reconstr Surg 128:520–526

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Davis Sears E, Burns PB, Chung KC (2007) The outcomes of outcome studies in plastic surgery: a systematic review of 17 years of plastic surgery research. Plast Reconstr Surg 7:2059–2065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kosowski TR, McCarthy C, Reavey PL, Scott AM, Wilkins EG, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Carr N, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL (2009) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg 6:1819–1827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 

  31. Pusic AL, Lemaine V, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cano SJ Patient-reported outcome measures in plastic surgery: use and interpretation in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 3:1361–1367

  32. Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27:178–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Alsarraf R, Larrabee WF Jr, Anderson S, Murakami CS, Johnson CM Jr (2001) Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes. Arch Facial Plast Surg 3:198–201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cano S, Klassen A, Pusic A (2009) The science behind quality-of-life measurement: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:98–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, Klassen A, Goodcare T (1999) Methods of assessing health-related quality of life and outcome for plastic surgery. Br J Plast Surg 52:251–255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cano S, Browne J, Lamping D (2004) Patient-based measures of outcome in plastic surgery: current approaches and future directions. Br J Plast Surg 57:1–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Thoma A, Veltri K, Khuthaila D, Rockwell G, Duku E (2004) Comparison of the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap and free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in postmastectomy reconstruction: a costeffectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1650–1661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Efficace F, Bottomley A, Osoba D, Gotay C, Flechtner H, D’haese S, Zurlo A (2003) Beyond the development of health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures: a checklist for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in cancer clinical trials: Does HRQOL evaluation in prostate cancer research inform clinical decision making? J Clin Oncol 21:3502–3511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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 

  40. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA, Tuinebreijer WE, Middelkoop E, Kreis RW, van Zuijlen PP (2004) The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1960–1967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Boyce MB, Browne JP (2013) Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review. Qual Life Res 9:2265–2278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bausewein C, Simon ST, Benalia H, Downing J, Mwangi-Powell FN, Daveson BA, Harding R, Higginson IJ (2011) PRISMA: implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in palliative care: Users’ cry for help. Health Qual Life Outcomes 20:27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wilson J, Arshad F, Nnamoko N, Whiteman A, Ring J, Roy B (2013) Patient-reported outcome measures: An online system empowering patient choice. J Am Med Inform Assoc. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001183

  44. Howell D, Liu G (2011) Can routine collection of patient reported outcome data actually improve person-centered health? Healthc Pap 11:42–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. McGrail K, Bryan S, Davis J (2011) Let’s all go to the PROM: the case for routine patient-reported outcome measurement in Canadian healthcare. Healthc Pap 11:8–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Cristina Di Silvestre for her invaluable contribution with patient interviews.

Conflict of interest

The Body-PROM, Body-QoL, Body-PSSOAS, Body-PPDS, Lipo-PPDS and Tummy-PPDS are owned by Dr. Stefan Danilla, the developer of these instruments. The Body-PROM instruments and all modules and sub-scales (QoL, PPDS and PSSOAS) are free for use by academic and non-profit organizations. The authors declare that they have no other conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Plastic Surgery Unit, Surgery Department, Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile, Sector B, 3er piso, Santos Dumont 999, Independencia, 8380456, Santiago, Chile

    Stefan Danilla, Carlos Dominguez, Pedro Cuevas, María Elsa Calderón, Marco Antonio Rios, Patricio Andrades, Susana Benitez, Cristian Erazo, Rolando Shulz & Sergio Sepúlveda

  2. Plastic Surgery Department, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Sarah Al-Himdani

Authors
  1. Stefan Danilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlos Dominguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pedro Cuevas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. María Elsa Calderón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marco Antonio Rios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Patricio Andrades
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Susana Benitez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Cristian Erazo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Rolando Shulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Sarah Al-Himdani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sergio Sepúlveda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Danilla.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Danilla, S., Dominguez, C., Cuevas, P. et al. The Body-QoL®: Measuring Patient Reported Outcomes in Body Contouring Surgery Patients. Aesth Plast Surg 38, 575–583 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-014-0302-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-014-0302-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation