ArticleJournal of neurodevelopmental disorders2025
Patient reported outcomes that matter to individuals with (genetic) intellectual disabilities: a qualitative study.
Article in Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders, 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.
- What Matters Most? Developing a Core Patient Reported Outcome Set for Individuals With Genetic Intellectual Disabilities: An International Delphi Study.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo improve the quality of care and the impact of interventions for individuals with (genetic) intellectual disabilities ((G)ID), it is essential to identify and measure relevant patient reported outcomes (PROs), which represent patient perspective on their health and functioning. Currently, various, and potentially irrelevant PROs are being measured for individuals with (G)ID. The aim of this study is to identify relevant PROs from the perspective of different stakeholders, as one of the first steps towards development of a meaningful PRO set for children and adults with (G)ID.
methodsA qualitative study was performed using focus groups and interviews with individuals with (G)ID, caregivers, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and European patient representatives. A focus group- and interview guide was developed including two themes: the impact of (G)ID on daily life and important topics to discuss with HCPs. Data collection took place until data sufficiency was reached. All sessions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed by three researchers using a thematic analysis approach. PROs were classified and conceptualized (i.e., describing the content of each PRO in detail) within a conceptual framework.
resultsTen focus groups and 13 interviews were conducted with a total of 51 participants. In total, seven adolescents and 10 adults with (G)ID, 12 caregivers, 13 multidisciplinary HCPs and nine European patient representatives participated. Data sufficiency was reached. PROs reported by participants were related to all health domains including physical, mental, and social functioning. Themes related to the negative impact of (G)ID were prioritized for discussion during consultations.
conclusionsThis study sheds light on relevant PROs for individuals with (G)ID, marking one of the first steps in developing a meaningful PRO set for (G)ID. Once established, this set will inform care, research agendas, policymaking, and the development of a generic patient reported outcome measure (PROM) set for (G)ID, improving care quality and research impact for this complex and vulnerable population.
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.