ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Patient passports for rare diseases: results of a pilot study.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2026. 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.
- New year, new insights in genomic medicine.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For individuals with rare diseases, complex needs requiring multidisciplinary management can cause disjointed healthcare and challenges communicating with healthcare professionals (HCPs). 'Patient passports' support communication and healthcare coordination by sharing healthcare information with HCPs, reducing burden on patients/caregivers. Currently, no widely adopted passport addresses the multifaceted needs of patients with rare diseases. This pilot study was a service evaluation of a rare-disease-specific patient passport, co-designed with patients and HCPs. Patients/caregivers completed surveys before ('pre-passport') and after ('post-passport') using the passport. HCPs were surveyed on their perception of the passport. Of 157 'pre-passport' survey respondents, 96.2% spent considerable time explaining medical needs to new care teams; 65.6% found communicating care needs challenging. Nearly all respondents (99.4%) believed a document presenting relevant healthcare information would be helpful. Among 55 'post-passport' survey respondents, 85.1% used the passport during care interactions; 72.2% found it eased communication with unfamiliar teams, and 64.2% felt more confident communicating their needs. Over half (53.8%) felt the passport helped access needed care, 67.9% found it more useful than existing tools, and 75.9% were highly likely to recommend it to peers. All 31 HCP respondents listed perceived benefits, including improved HCP-patient/caregiver communication; some noted a preference for formal endorsement. By alleviating patient/caregiver-HCP communication challenges, this rare-disease-specific patient passport can enhance healthcare coordination and patient experiences. Participants' use of the passport during interactions with care teams and likelihood of recommendation to peers support its widespread integration. Further work to assess usability across healthcare settings and to gain formal endorsement is warranted.
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.