Measuring activities and participation in persons with haemophilia: A systematic review of commonly used instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Monitoring clinical outcome in persons with haemophilia (PWH) is essential in order to provide optimal treatment for individual patients and compare effectiveness of treatment strategies. Experience with measurement of activities and participation in haemophilia is limited and consensus on preferred tools is lacking. AIM: The aim of this study was to give a comprehensive overview of the measurement properties of a selection of commonly used tools developed to assess activities and participation in PWH. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for articles that reported on reliability, validity or responsiveness of predetermined measurement tools (5 self-reported and 4 performance based measurement tools). Methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to the COSMIN checklist. Best evidence synthesis was used to summarize evidence on the measurement properties. RESULTS: The search resulted in 3453 unique hits. Forty-two articles were included. The self-reported Haemophilia Acitivity List (HAL), Pediatric HAL (PedHAL) and the performance based Functional Independence Score in Haemophilia (FISH) were studied most extensively. Methodological quality of the studies was limited. Measurement error, cross-cultural validity and responsiveness have been insufficiently evaluated. CONCLUSION: Albeit based on limited evidence, the measurement properties of the PedHAL, HAL and FISH are currently considered most satisfactory. Further research needs to focus on measurement error, responsiveness, interpretability and cross-cultural validity of the self-reported tools and validity of performance based tools which are able to assess limitations in sports and leisure activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".