ArticleThe patient2012
Cognitive testing and readability of an item bank for measuring the impact of headache on health-related quality of life.
Article in The patient, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prioritising patient involvement in patient reported outcome measures- a PROMising way to improve headache care.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Review
- Content Validity of HIT-6 as a Measure of Headache Impact in People With Migraine: A Narrative Review.Headache · 2020Review
- Improving CKD-Specific Patient-Reported Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2019Article
- Standardizing disease-specific quality of life measures across multiple chronic conditions: development and initial evaluation of the QOL Disease Impact Scale (QDIS®).Health and quality of life outcomes · 2016Article
- Neurological Health: Not Merely the Absence of Disease: Current Wellbeing Instruments Across the Spectrum of Neurology.American journal of lifestyle medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures should be valid and accessible to a wide audience.
objectiveCognitive item testing and readability studies were conducted to evaluate how adult headache sufferers (N = 9) understood and responded to the Headache Impact Test (HIT™) item bank, a PRO measure for headache that serves as the source of item content for the HIT-6™ (a widely used six-item short-form measure of headache impact with more than 30 language translations), and the Dynamic Health Assessment Headache Impact Test (DYNHA® HIT™) [a computerized adaptive test (CAT) of headache impact].
methodsDuring cognitive interviews, participants were asked to 'think aloud' as they read survey instructions, completed items, and formulated responses. Data analyses evaluated item comprehension, memory recall of relevant information, and decision and response processes; compared various item attributes; and tested shortened item versions.
resultsSurvey readability was at the seventh-grade level. Respondents understood most revised items as intended, and found shorter items comparable to longer items with some exceptions. When recall period was included in instructions but not within the items themselves, respondents often expanded the recall period to answer the item. Some response scales (e.g. "Never" to "Always") were more readily understood than others (e.g. "Definitely true" to "Definitely false").
conclusionQualitative research can improve the validity and accessibility of PRO measures that are used to monitor health conditions and aid patient-provider communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22510051What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.