ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Content Validity of the Hemophilia Device Handling and Preference Assessment Questionnaire - A Cognitive Debrief Study in Patients with Hemophilia and Their Caregivers.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As new treatment options using different modes of administration become available for patients with hemophilia, it is important to assess how patients and caregivers perceive the use of different injection systems. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate patient comprehension, relevance, and comprehensiveness of the Methods: This cross-sectional interview study included participants randomly selected from a pen-injector handling and preference study in the USA who had self-administered a ten-item HDHPA questionnaire. Subsequently, semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted examining HDHPA instrument instructions, items, and response options. Results: The study sample consisted of 20 participants (50% adult patients, 25% adolescents, and 25% caregivers; 75% male). Most participants (89-100%) demonstrated comprehension of the instructions given. Nearly all participants (94-100%) demonstrated clear comprehension of the ten HDHPA items. All 20 participants stated that the questionnaire was relevant and comprehensive in assessing the pen-injector and comparing it to their current device. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the HDHPA items are comprehensible, relevant, and comprehensive, thereby confirming the content validity of this instrument.
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.