ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2019
Longitudinal validity of the hemophilia caregiver impact measure.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concizumab prophylaxis in persons with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors: patient-reported outcome results from the phase 3 explorer7 study.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- Interplay of disability, caregiver impact, and out-of-pocket expenditures in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a cohort study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- Characterizing the quality-of-life impact of Duchenne muscular dystrophy on caregivers: a case-control investigation.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe hemophilia caregiver impact (HCI) measure is a 36-item self-report tool that has documented reliability and validity in a large cross-sectional study, but its longitudinal construct validity is unknown. This study's objective was to evaluate the responsiveness of the HCI to clinically important change, and to provide interpretation guidelines.
methodsThis web-based study invited 458 hemophilia caregivers involved in the HCI's validation study to provide follow-up data. Measures included the HCI, and a Likert item querying Global Assessment of Change (GAC) for caregiver burden. Responsiveness was estimated using anchor- and distribution-based methods. The anchor-based method computed the minimally important difference (MID) by computing the mean change separately for those who reported lesser or more caregiver burden on the GAC. The distribution-based method computed the Modified Standardized Response Mean (MSRM) separately for people who reporting reduced or increased burden as compared to the 'same' groups.
resultsThe study sample included 323 caregivers (71% response rate), with mean follow-up of 21.9 months. The HCI Burden Summary score and all negative-burden subscales but not the Positive Emotions subscale evidenced responsiveness to clinically important differences, showing statistically significant differences by transition group. The MIDs were relatively small mean changes over time (e.g., Burden Summary MID ranged from - 2.2 to 2.6, for reduced versus increased burden), and the MSRMs were small effect sizes. The Burden Summary score was equally sensitive to reduced versus increased burden (MSRM of - 0.32 and 0.35, respectively).
conclusionsThe HCI demonstrated longitudinal construct validity. The HCI shows promise for clinical hemophilia studies as a caregiver-based tool for evaluating treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.