Exploring the Use of Pictorial Approaches in the Development of Paediatric Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Children may find self-reporting health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) presented in text-based formats difficult, particularly younger children and children with developmental delays or chronic illness. In such cases, pictorial PROMs (where pictorial representations are used alongside or to replace text) may offer a valid alternative. AIM: This systematic literature review focused on identifying and describing paediatric PROMs that incorporate pictorial approaches, providing children with more effective means to express their HRQoL. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to 1 March 2022. There were no country restrictions applied to the search; all English-language studies were considered for inclusion in the review. Characteristics and development methods of the identified pictorial PROMs were evaluated against context-specific good practice guidelines published by The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). RESULTS: A total of 22 paediatric pictorial PROMs, comprising 28 unique versions, were identified. These PROMs were predominantly developed in the USA and the UK, targeting children aged 3-18 years. Likert scales with pictorial anchors, particularly happy-sad faces, were commonly used for response options, appearing in 15 (54%) of the PROMs. Various graphic methods, such as happy-sad faces, cartoons, and thermometers, were adapted to specific content domains. These PROMs covered a wide range of domains, including physical and emotional health and social functioning. Emphasis was placed on content validity, including active child participation in developing pictorial elements. Notably, children's participation was sought during the development of the pictorial elements for 13 (46%) of the PROMs. Various development methods were employed, with 43% of paediatric PROMs using literature reviews, 43% using focus groups, and 32% involving expert consultation. Interviews emerged as the primary method, being employed in 61% of the studies. Additionally, three measures specifically addressed cross-cultural considerations. CONCLUSION: Paediatric pictorial PROMs offer child-friendly tools for assessing HRQoL for application with children who find reading and understanding text-based PROMs challenging. There is some evidence that pictorial PROMs facilitate self-report in this population and improve measurement properties compared to text-only PROMs. Further research is needed to develop, validate, and test paediatric pictorial PROMs, with an emphasis on including children from the inception in the co-design process.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,108 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,015 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».