Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Pediatric Non-Malignant Hematology: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires completed by patients or caregivers without interpretation by healthcare professionals. As such, they allow patient concerns about a variety of healthcare issues to be identified and addressed in an efficient and actionable manner. PROMs can be generic, with questions relevant to multiple disease groups or disease-specific, with questions targeting the symptoms, limitations, and feelings common to the disease group. This systematic review identified generic and disease-specific PROMs for monitoring symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in 4 pediatric non-malignant hematologic disease groups: thalassemia, hemophilia, immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), and sickle cell disease (SCD). Methods: Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, HaPI, CINAHL, and PsycTESTS) were searched to identify publications that either validated or used PROMs as an outcome measure in the four disease groups. Articles were excluded when <30% of the population was pediatric (<18 years), when the study setting was inpatient, when the tool had not been validated, or when the article did not report the use of a PROM for monitoring symptoms or HRQoL. Notably, hemophilia records published prior to 2016 were not screened as a systematic review by Limperg et al. (2017) identified validated PROMs in the pediatric hemophilia population and was used to include relevant articles. Results: The search identified 1176 unique records, with 902 records remaining for title and abstract screening after removal of 274 hemophilia articles published prior to the systematic review. Including hemophilia records identified from the 2017 review, 217 articles met inclusion criteria incorporating 107 generic and 20 disease-specific PROMs. Of the generic tools, the most frequent categories identified include psychological well-being (26 tools), general quality of life (19 tools), and family impact (19 tools). The most frequently used tool was the PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales (66 studies), appearing 33 times in SCD, 25 times in thalassemia, 5 times in ITP, and 3 times in hemophilia. Other commonly used generic tools include the Short Form Health Survey, Child Health Questionnaire, PROMIS Health Measures, and Child Behaviour Checklist (Table). Disease-specific tools identified in the review include the PedsQL SCD Module, Kids ITP Tool, Haemo-QoL, CHO-KLAT, and TranQol (Table). In addition, 10 studies reported on pain diaries and 9 of these studies were SCD focused, the other being hemophilia focused. Conclusion: This systematic review identified several generic and disease-specific PROMs that have been used in pediatric non-malignant hematology. Although generic tools have been used more frequently, many disease-specific tools have been validated and are available for use in the clinical environment. We are currently conducting focus groups with patients, parents, and clinicians to determine the optimal choice of tools for monitoring symptoms and HRQoL in the pediatric non-malignant clinical environment. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".