The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema: lessons for data collection in eczema trials

Capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema: lessons for data collection in eczema trials
Capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema: lessons for data collection in eczema trials
Background
Emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCS) prevent and treat flares in eczema. However, topical treatment use is poorly recorded and reported in clinical trials. There is no clear consensus of how best to capture and summarise topical treatment use.

Objectives
To explore different ways of capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema.

Methods
Secondary data analysis using 450 participants from the Best Emollients for Eczema (BEE) trial. Participants were allocated to use one type of emollient (lotion, cream, gel, or ointment) ‘twice daily and when required’ for 16 weeks. Otherwise, clinical management remained unchanged. Parents completed weekly questions about topical therapy use and eczema symptoms. Two versions of topical treatment use questionnaires were used. The first (n=202, 44.9%) asked parents to report treatment use on days 1-7, starting completion on the day they were randomised. The second (n=248, 55.1%) reported use by day of the week (Monday to Sunday), starting completion the first Monday after randomisation. Both underwent Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) review, but the second version was tested more thoroughly using cognitive interviewing techniques, following parent feedback that questions on the first version were confusing. Descriptive statistics compared questionnaire completion and differences in emollient and TCS use.

Results
Overall, questionnaire completion for both emollient and TCS use decreased with time: but at weeks 1 and 16 were 84.7% (381/450) and 58.9% (265/450) for emollient use, and 94.2% (424/450) and 80.4% (362/450) for TCS use, respectively. Fewer emollient use questionnaires were completed with first (33.5%) than the second (87.9%) version (p<0.001). TCS use questionnaire completion were similar for both (84.9% and 87.4%, p=0.002). We present different ways of summarising topical treatment use.

Conclusions
While questionnaire completion was similar for TCS use, emollient use data completeness was higher in the second version. When designing questionnaires, balancing the detail and complexity of questions is important, especially if being collected as a secondary outcome measure. Numerous ways of summarising the same data can provide different information. Future collection and reporting of treatment use should reflect specific trial aims.
0307-6938
Memory, Katherine E.
dc9608b7-cf3d-497c-8d4b-4320df10486b
Macneill, Stephanie J.
2c5c4027-4f93-4cc8-a56c-fa85772f3a09
Thomas, Kim
9d3742f0-c4fc-4d43-9255-3f854ebf134d
Santer, Miriam
3ce7e832-31eb-4d27-9876-3a1cd7f381dc
Ridd, Matthew
2f15120c-d5fa-4f5d-bb86-21356e034df7
Memory, Katherine E.
dc9608b7-cf3d-497c-8d4b-4320df10486b
Macneill, Stephanie J.
2c5c4027-4f93-4cc8-a56c-fa85772f3a09
Thomas, Kim
9d3742f0-c4fc-4d43-9255-3f854ebf134d
Santer, Miriam
3ce7e832-31eb-4d27-9876-3a1cd7f381dc
Ridd, Matthew
2f15120c-d5fa-4f5d-bb86-21356e034df7

Memory, Katherine E., Macneill, Stephanie J., Thomas, Kim, Santer, Miriam and Ridd, Matthew (2024) Capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema: lessons for data collection in eczema trials. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology. (doi:10.1093/ced/llae328).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background
Emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCS) prevent and treat flares in eczema. However, topical treatment use is poorly recorded and reported in clinical trials. There is no clear consensus of how best to capture and summarise topical treatment use.

Objectives
To explore different ways of capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema.

Methods
Secondary data analysis using 450 participants from the Best Emollients for Eczema (BEE) trial. Participants were allocated to use one type of emollient (lotion, cream, gel, or ointment) ‘twice daily and when required’ for 16 weeks. Otherwise, clinical management remained unchanged. Parents completed weekly questions about topical therapy use and eczema symptoms. Two versions of topical treatment use questionnaires were used. The first (n=202, 44.9%) asked parents to report treatment use on days 1-7, starting completion on the day they were randomised. The second (n=248, 55.1%) reported use by day of the week (Monday to Sunday), starting completion the first Monday after randomisation. Both underwent Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) review, but the second version was tested more thoroughly using cognitive interviewing techniques, following parent feedback that questions on the first version were confusing. Descriptive statistics compared questionnaire completion and differences in emollient and TCS use.

Results
Overall, questionnaire completion for both emollient and TCS use decreased with time: but at weeks 1 and 16 were 84.7% (381/450) and 58.9% (265/450) for emollient use, and 94.2% (424/450) and 80.4% (362/450) for TCS use, respectively. Fewer emollient use questionnaires were completed with first (33.5%) than the second (87.9%) version (p<0.001). TCS use questionnaire completion were similar for both (84.9% and 87.4%, p=0.002). We present different ways of summarising topical treatment use.

Conclusions
While questionnaire completion was similar for TCS use, emollient use data completeness was higher in the second version. When designing questionnaires, balancing the detail and complexity of questions is important, especially if being collected as a secondary outcome measure. Numerous ways of summarising the same data can provide different information. Future collection and reporting of treatment use should reflect specific trial aims.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 16 August 2024
Published date: 18 August 2024

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 496731
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/496731
ISSN: 0307-6938
PURE UUID: 38b9d20c-9b8b-47d0-8f5c-dec400fd6799
ORCID for Miriam Santer: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7264-5260

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 07 Jan 2025 22:10
Last modified: 10 Jan 2025 02:47

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Katherine E. Memory
Author: Stephanie J. Macneill
Author: Kim Thomas
Author: Miriam Santer ORCID iD
Author: Matthew Ridd

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×