ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Developing Assessments for Key Stakeholders in Pediatric Congenital Heart Disease: Qualitative Pilot Study to Inform Designing of a Medical Education Toy.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pediatric Hearts and Minds: Reimagining Health Education Through Play and Narrative.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCongenital heart disease (CHD) is a birth defect of the heart that requires long-term care and often leads to additional health complications. Effective educational strategies are essential for improving health literacy and care outcomes. Despite affecting around 40,000 children annually in the United States, there is a gap in understanding children's health literacy, parental educational burdens, and the efficiency of health care providers in delivering education.
objectiveThis qualitative pilot study aims to develop tailored assessment tools to evaluate educational needs and burdens among children with CHD, their parents, and health care providers. These assessments will inform the design of medical education toys to enhance health management and outcomes for pediatric patients with CHD and key stakeholders.
methodsThrough stakeholder feedback from pediatric patients with CHD, parents, and health care providers, we developed three tailored assessments in two phases: (1) iterative development of the assessment tools and (2) pilot testing. In the first phase, we defined key concepts, conducted a literature review, and created initial drafts of the assessments. During the pilot-testing phase, 12 participants were recruited at the M Health Fairview Pediatric Specialty Clinic for Cardiology-Explorer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States. We gathered feedback using qualitative methods, including cognitive interviews such as think-aloud techniques, verbal probing, and observations of nonverbal cues. The data were analyzed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each assessment item and areas for improvement.
resultsThe 12 participants included children with CHD (n=5), parents (n=4), and health care providers (n=3). The results showed the feasibility and effectiveness of the tailored assessments. Participants showed high levels of engagement and found the assessment items relevant to their education needs. Iterative revisions based on participant feedback improved the assessments' clarity, relevance, and engagement for all stakeholders, including children with CHD.
conclusionsThis pilot study emphasizes the importance of iterative assessment development, focusing on multistakeholder engagement. The insights gained from the development process will guide the creation of tailored assessments and inform the development of child-led educational interventions for pediatric populations with CHD.
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.