Development of a health‐related quality of life measure for boys with haemophilia: the Canadian Haemophilia Outcomes – Kids Life Assessment Tool (CHO‐KLAT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several measures of quality of life (QoL) are available for children with haemophilia. However, most are not disease-specific and few focus on children's perspectives. The purpose of this study was to develop a psychometrically sound measure of QoL that included the perspectives of boys with haemophilia. A list of potential items was developed from the literature, other measures, and input from five discussion sessions with adults with haemophilia, children with haemophilia and their parents and haemophilia nurses. The list was augmented with items generated by three focus groups with children and three focus groups with parents. These groups also prioritized items and recommended a domain structure. Supplemental information was gathered by surveying haematologists. Data from all sources were analysed to reduce the number of items using a two-step approach, based on rules that weighted the children's priorities most heavily. The remaining items were compiled into a questionnaire that was pilot tested with 10 children and their parents. The total item pool contained 228 potential items. Of these, 33 were removed based on three focus groups and survey responses, 72 were removed after the completion of all focus groups and 46 were removed due to redundancy. This resulted in a 77-item version of the CHO-KLAT. Pilot testing identified the need to subdivide two items, resulting in a 79-item CHO-KLAT. The CHO-KLAT is a promising disease-specific measure of QoL that reflects children's unique perspectives. This child-centric focus distinguishes the CHO-KLAT from alternative measures of QoL. Further research will assess the measurement properties of the CHO-KLAT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".