ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2025
Validating a codesigned paediatric patient reported experience measure: a study protocol.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Experiences and perspectives of children and adolescents participating in pediatric clinical trials: a qualitative evidence synthesis.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Pooled it
- Using cognitive interviews with children to test the content validity of a paediatric patient reported experience measure.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient reported experience measures (PREMs) are important tools to include the voices of patients in healthcare provision. Children have a right to be included in decisions made about their care. A self-reported, locally validated and standardised paediatric PREM (pPREM) does not exist for use in Australian healthcare settings. Further, existing pPREMs are rarely codesigned with children or developed to be completed by children themselves. This study aims to validate a pPREM that will be completed by children within Australian healthcare settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will involve three subphases, engaging children aged 6-11 years old who have had a hospital admission in the past 3 months. First, up to 25 children will participate in cognitive interviews to pilot test pPREM items. Using feedback from the interviews, population testing will occur with about 180 children at six Australian hospitals to determine the validity, reliability and feasibility of the pPREM. The study's implementation process will be evaluated through interviews with approximately 25-30 clinicians, managers and other stakeholders.
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.