ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2021
Optimizing language for effective communication of gene therapy concepts with hemophilia patients: a qualitative study.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gene Therapy in Hemophilia: Clinical Advances, Immunological Challenges, and Emerging Therapeutic Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Acceptance of Cell and Gene Therapy Among Patients with Hematological Diseases in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Development of a novel gene editing lexicon for hemophilia: methodology and results.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Contemporary approaches to treat people with hemophilia: what's new and what's not?Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Review
- A novel gene editing lexicon strategy for the haemophilia community: Research plan for development and preliminary results.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2024Article
- The legacy of language: What we say, and what people hear, when we talk about genomics.HGG advances · 2023Article
- Gene Therapy for Hemophilia A: A Mixed Methods Study of Patient Preferences and Shared Decision-Making.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- How to translate and implement the current science of gene therapy into haemophilia care?Therapeutic advances in hematology · 2023Review
- Haemophilia gene therapy: experiences and lessons from treated patients.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Article
- Gene Therapy and Hemophilia: Where Do We Go from Here?Journal of blood medicine · 2022Review
- Article
- International consensus recommendations on the management of people with haemophilia B.Therapeutic advances in hematology · 2022Review
- The Hemophilia Gene Therapy Patient Journey: Questions and Answers for Shared Decision-Making.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Gene Therapy in Hemophilia: Recent Advances.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Defining the Role of Nurses in Gene Therapy for Haemophilia.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of HemophiliaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor communities of people living with hemophilia and other genetic conditions, gene therapy could represent a paradigm shift in treatment strategies. As investigational therapeutic modalities such as gene therapy become more widely used and discussed, there is a critical need for all stakeholders to communicate using a lexicon that is intelligible, accurate, consistent, and representative of novel treatments. In doing so, expectations can be more carefully managed and potential risks, benefits, and limitations better understood. In recognition of this need, a first-ever study of gene therapy lexicon was conducted using established methods of market research and linguistic analysis.
methodsNinety-four participants representing hematologists, nurses, caregivers, and people with hemophilia A, in six countries (US, UK, Spain, Germany, France, Italy) took part in a series of in-depth interviews, face-to-face focus groups, an advisory board meeting, and online group interviews to develop, refine, and test verbal, written, and pictorial language concepts through a three-phase iterative process. Sessions were conducted in local languages using detailed discussion guides. Feedback from participants was captured using real-time instant-response dial testing to measure moment-by-moment emotional responses to language stimuli. Semiquantitative analysis of the responses informed selection of preferred language concepts for final testing, and qualitative discussion explored preference rationale. Participants also completed polling and forced rank and choice written exercises.
resultsStudy feedback showed that the hemophilia community has preferences around consistent lexicon to describe hemophilia and its management. Expert linguistic analysis of feedback from the three phases enabled agreement of a consensus lexicon of vocabulary and an optimized summary narrative for talking about gene therapy amongst people affected by hemophilia A. Preferences were largely consistent across audiences and countries, although some country-specific recommendations were made. A representative summary phrase was agreed: "Gene therapy is being studied in clinical trials with the aim to allow the body to produce factor VIII protein on its own".
conclusionsThe use of preferred language across different stakeholders increases understanding and comfort during discussions of novel and complex therapeutic modalities such as gene therapy. Consistent use of community-informed lexicon minimizes miscommunication and facilitates informed decision-making regarding potential future treatment opportunities.
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.