# Knowledge assessment tools in atopic dermatitis patient education: a scoping review

## TL;DR

This scoping review examines tools used to assess knowledge in atopic dermatitis patient education, finding common methods but highlighting the need for better validated measures.

## Contribution

The study is the first to systematically review knowledge assessment tools in atopic dermatitis patient education.

## Key findings

- Most studies used randomized controlled trials and focused on caregiver knowledge.
- Objective knowledge assessments used multiple-choice questions, while subjective assessments used Likert-type scales.
- There is a need for high-quality, validated knowledge outcome measures in AD patient education.

## Abstract

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic and inflammatory skin disease which requires continuous self-management by patients and caregivers. Patient education in AD can improve the self-management practices, treatment adherence rates, and clinical outcomes of patients. Patient-reported outcome measures and objective clinical outcome measures have been used to assess the effectiveness of AD patient education interventions, however they have limited use in assessing learning outcomes, such as knowledge. The literature on knowledge outcome measures for AD patient education interventions has not been examined to date.

We performed a scoping review of the literature on knowledge assessment tools for AD patient education interventions following the PRISMA-ScR framework. Search databases included MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Education Source, Web of Science, Grey Matters, Clinical Trials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Of the 3914 articles identified from the search strategy, 20 studies were eligible for data extraction and summarized by narrative synthesis. Most studies were randomised controlled trials originating in the United States, Europe, and Asia, and published in the years of 2003–2023. Researchers commonly evaluated caregivers’ knowledge of AD and included assessments of clinical outcome measures. Similar methods were employed for assessing subjective knowledge across studies. Likewise, studies measuring AD patient/caregiver objective knowledge used comparable methods. Multiple-choice and true/false question formats were used in objective knowledge assessments, and Likert-type scales were common for evaluating subjective knowledge. Objective knowledge assessments consisted of more questions than subjective knowledge outcome measures. Content assessed in knowledge outcome measures was relatively consistent across studies. Delivery of subjective and objective AD knowledge assessments was by telephone, in clinic, and/or online. In pre- and post-test study designs, identical knowledge outcome measures were administered.

This scoping review highlights the diverse components of knowledge assessment tools for AD patient education interventions. Further studies on developing and validating high-quality AD knowledge outcome measures are needed for assessing the true effects of patient education interventions on improving patient/caregiver knowledge.