ArticleJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2026
What Matters Most? Developing a Core Patient Reported Outcome Set for Individuals With Genetic Intellectual Disabilities: An International Delphi Study.
Article in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImproving care and research for individuals with genetic intellectual disabilities (GID) requires the identification and measurement of relevant patient reported outcomes (PROs). PROs represent the patient perspective on their health status. Currently, a myriad of potentially irrelevant PROs is being measured for individuals with GID. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify the most relevant PROs through a Delphi survey and consensus meetings and develop a generic core PRO set applicable to the whole GID population to be used in care and research.
methodsPROs, previously identified through a comprehensive literature review and a qualitative study, were integrated and conceptualised into a pilot generic core PRO set with an expert group. This pilot set was presented in a two-round Delphi survey with individuals with GID, caregivers and experts. Consensus was set at 60% or more of all participant groups rating a PRO as important for inclusion in the final core PRO set, or as not important for exclusion. The Delphi surveys were followed by two consensus meetings with individuals with GID, caregivers and experts to reach consensus on the undecided PROs.
resultsTwelve individuals with GID, 21 caregivers and 28 experts (total n = 61) participated in the first Delphi round. Twenty-nine PROs were presented to the participants. In the first round, consensus was reached on one important PRO 'fatigue'. In the second round, consensus was reached on 12 important PROs: fatigue, sleep, physical functioning/activities, quality of life, social functioning/participation, perceived health, cognitive functioning, depressive symptoms, mobility/functioning of the lower extremities, receptive communication, expressive communication and sensory overresponsivity. During the consensus meetings, consensus was reached on seven additional important PROs: pain, anxiety/stress, anger, vision, hearing, gastrointestinal symptoms and mental functioning. This resulted in a final generic core PRO set including the 19 PROs.
conclusionsThis study identified the most relevant PROs for GID, marking the final step in developing a generic core PRO set for the whole GID population. This GID core PRO set provides a framework to guide care, research and policymaking. The next step involves selecting and validating corresponding patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) to adequately measure these PROs: the GID core PROM set.
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.