ArticleHaemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia2025
Development and validation of the Child Hemophilia Treatment Experience Measure: A new observer-reported outcome measure.
Article in Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Denecimig (Mim8) prophylaxis in children with hemophilia A with or without factor VIII inhibitors.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Trial
- Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling of FIX in Pediatric Hemophilia B: Extravascular Distribution and Dosing Optimization.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- A Delphi Consensus by Hematologists on the Burden of Treatment on Patients with Severe Hemophilia in Mexico.Journal of blood medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of the Child Hemophilia Treatment Experience Measure: A new observer-reported outcome measure.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2025Article
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
introductionThe Child Hemophilia Treatment Experience Measure (Child Hemo-TEM) was developed to capture the treatment burden experience of children with haemophilia (CwH).
aimDescribe the development of this novel haemophilia-specific measure.
methodsInterviews were conducted with clinical experts, CwH and CwH's caregivers. Interviews were analysed according to adapted grounded theory principles. Based on the analysis, a preliminary measure was developed and debriefed. Psychometric analyses were performed according to an a priori analysis plan using data collected in a cross-sectional web survey and a final measure was generated.
resultsInterviews with four clinical experts, 25 CwH ages 8 to <12 years, and 25 caregivers of CwH <12 years were conducted. Concepts endorsed by ≥10% of CwH and caregivers were: adherence, ease of use, emotional impacts, physical impacts, treatment concerns, and interference with daily life. Cognitive debriefing assessments were conducted to ensure participant understanding and item relevance. Caregivers found the measure to be understandable, comprehensive, and relevant. However, several issues with CwH completing the measure were identified and it was decided to only develop an observer-reported outcome version. Data for psychometric validation was collected in a web survey (N = 187). Item reduction dropped 12 items. Factor analysis generated a single, 7-item, internally consistent (α = .855) factor, which consisted of items covering all relevant a priori concepts. The majority of a priori convergent and all known groups validity hypotheses were confirmed.
conclusionsThe study findings provide evidence that the Child Hemo-TEM is a brief, well-designed, and valid and reliable measure of haemophilia treatment burden.
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.