ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Developing a Process for Preference Measures in Pediatric Growth Hormone Deficiency: Challenges and Solutions.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Patient experience data capturing the patient voice is gaining increasing recognition across the drug development continuum for use in risk/benefit analysis to evaluate new drugs. The aim of this study was to delineate a prototype process for and then, following this process, develop questionnaires to rigorously assess patient-centric treatment preferences, using pediatric growth hormone deficiency (PGHD) treatment as a model. Patients and Methods: A literature review and concept elicitation interviews with clinical experts (n=5), caregivers of children with PGHD (n=15), and children with PGHD (n=15) were conducted. Most respondents were on injectable treatments with a small subsample on an investigational oral treatment. Data were analyzed based on adapted ground theory, and the GHD-Preference Measure (GHD-PRM), and GHD-Attribute Measure (GHD-ATM) were developed. These questionnaires were cognitively debriefed, refined, and finalized. Best practices for patient-reported outcome measure development and guidelines on assessing patient preferences were followed. Results: Beyond efficacy, some of the most important treatment aspects determining preference for caregivers were the ease of preparation/setup, convenience, and side effects. The most frequently reported reasons for missing, postponing, or changing their child's medication (eg, dosage) included travel/being away from home and flexibility of dosing. The most frequently reported treatment impacts on children's daily lives were travel/being away from home, social activities/relationships, and evening routine/schedule. Findings were generally similar between caregivers and children, and those on injectable vs oral treatment. The GHD-PRM is intended for use when treatment comparisons are appropriate; the GHD-ATM is intended for use when treatment comparisons are not available. Each has a caregiver and child version. Conclusion: The GHD-PRM and GHD-ATM can be considered disease-specific prototype preference and attribute questionnaires developed according to a rigorous patient-centric process. Novel, well developed preference measures such as these can provide valuable data to researchers, clinicians, regulators and reimbursement agencies.
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.