Health‐related quality of life questionnaires in individuals with haemophilia: a systematic review of their measurement properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evaluation of health related quality of life (HRQOL) is essential for a full assessment of the influence of an illness on patients' lives. The aim of this paper is to critically appraise and compare the measurement properties of HRQOL questionnaires studied in haemophilia. METHODS: Bibliographic databases (Embase, Medline, Cinahl and PsycInfo) were searched for articles evaluating measurement properties of HRQOL questionnaires in haemophilia. Articles were excluded that did not report HRQOL measurement properties, or when <50% of the study population had haemophilia. The methodological quality of the selected studies was evaluated using the COSMIN checklist. The measurement properties of the HRQL questionnaires were rated as 'positive', 'indeterminate' or 'negative', accompanied by levels of evidence. RESULTS: The search resulted in 1597 unique hits, of which 22 studies were included. These articles evaluated three questionnaires for children (CHO-KLAT, Haemo-QoL and one unnamed measure) and five for adults (Hemofilia-QoL, Haemophilia Well-Being Index, HAEMO-QoL-A, Haem-A-QoL, and SF-36). The CHO-KLAT was the paediatric measure that showed the strongest measurement properties in high-quality studies. The Haemophilia Well-Being Index and HAEMO-QoL-A performed best among the adult measures. None of the studies reported measurement error and responsiveness. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that there is no need for new disease-specific HRQOL questionnaires for haemophilia, but rather that additional research is necessary to document the measurement properties of the currently available questionnaires, specifically focusing on the structural validity, measurement error and responsiveness of these questionnaires.
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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".