Skin Distress Screening: Validation of an Efficient One-question Tool

Tirza Blom, Karin B. Fieten, Patrick M. J. H. Kemperman, Saskia Spillekom-van Koulil, Rieky E. G. Dikmans

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Skin diseases are often accompanied by physical, emotional and social problems, which may negatively impact health-related quality of life and result in skin-related distress. It is essential to identify patients with skin-related distress within the short time-window of an outpatient dermatological visit. Therefore the one-question screening tool, the Distress Thermometer adjusted for skin conditions, was validated in a cross-sectional questionnaire study. In 2 medical centres in Amsterdam, 214 patients with a chronic skin disease were invited to complete the Distress Thermometer and additional health-related quality of life questionnaires. To validate the Distress Thermometer, the Skindex29 was used as gold standard. To test test-retest reliability, the questionnaires were answered at 2 different time-points. Severely impaired health-related quality of life was present in 30% of respondents according to the Skindex29 using a cut-off score of 44. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses yielded an area under the curve of 0.813 (standard error 0.04, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.89). A cut-off score ≥ 4 on the Distress Thermometer provided the optimal ratio of sensitivity (90.7%) to specificity (56.1%). Therefore, for general practice, a cut-off score of ≥ 4 on the Distress Thermometer is advised. The Distress Thermometer seems to be a rapid, valid and reliable screening tool for identifying skin-related distress in patients with a chronic skin disease in the outpatient dermatology setting.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberadv4590
Pages (from-to)adv4590
JournalActa Dermato-Venereologica
Volume103
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 May 2023

Keywords

  • anxiety
  • depression
  • distress thermometer
  • health-related quality of life
  • skin diseases
  • validation study

Cite this