Development of the coreHEM mental health patient‐reported outcome measure – A novel mental health outlook measure for people with haemophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Currently, no quality-of-life instrument exists that captures the full experience of the mental health outlook (MHO), a coreHEM core outcome, in people with haemophilia, including the potential transformational experience of receiving gene therapy. AIM: To describe the methods used to develop a content validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that measures MHO for people with haemophilia. METHODS: A conceptual framework, developed from a literature/evidence review, was used to create an interview guide and draft a questionnaire. Males aged 15 or older with severe/moderate haemophilia were eligible to participate in concept elicitation or cognitive debriefing interviews. The conceptual framework was refined based on a thematic analysis of concept elicitation interviews and PROM items were developed from the conceptual framework. Cognitive debriefing sessions that prioritised relevance and understanding of the PROM were held in two rounds; items were updated iteratively. RESULTS: A conceptual framework with five domains (stigma, anxiety, depression, life interference and identity) was constructed from over 300 identified MHO concepts. Fifty-three participants took part in interviews. After 32 concept elicitation interviews, the framework was updated by including eight new sub-concepts and eliminating two. Updates to the questionnaire included items added or removed and improved wording. The final coreHEM MHO PROM has 26 questions in two sections (general mental health associated with haemophilia, and a gene therapy section). CONCLUSIONS: The instrument is content-validated and can be used as an exploratory outcome. MHO scores can be measured and compared to give more insight into patient quality of life.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".