ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Patient-Reported Experience Measurements From Individuals With Inherited Retinal Disorders Involved in Observational Research.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Inherited retinal disorders (IRD) are a complex group of conditions. By developing the first patient-reported experience measurement (PREM) questionnaire tailored for individuals with IRD participating in natural history studies, we gathered information on individuals' views of their experience while they are involved in research. Methods: Adults with IRD who (i) were enrolled in a natural history study taking place at Moorfields Eye Hospital (London, UK), (ii) had attended at least two study visits, (iii) the most recent one being less than two weeks before the questionnaire, and (iv) who were not involved in interventional research, were considered for participation. Results: Fifty individuals completed the PREM questionnaire at a mean age of 31.1 ± 11 years old and were diagnosed at a mean age of 14 ± 9.7 years old. Most individuals rated "getting closer to receiving treatment' as their main motivation to enroll in the study, and their biggest influence was their own curiosity. Individuals were more satisfied with the care they received, and least satisfied with the efficiency of the visit. After validity and reliability assessments, the final PREM was created, with 27 questions and five sections, and Cronbach alpha coefficient between 0.316 and 0.756 in each section. Conclusions: The PREM instrument allowed us to assess the overall satisfaction of individuals with IRD involved in research, detect possible barriers to research participation, and ways of improving our care. Translational Relevance: The final version can be included in future research and other sites worldwide, to maintain high quality standards.
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.