ArticleEndocrine connections2026
From patients to partners: evaluating a co-designed website for congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism.
Article in Endocrine connections, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (CHH) are geographically dispersed and have unmet health and informational needs. Patients often rely on the Internet to learn about CHH, find expert care, and connect with other patients. Aims: We partnered with patients to co-design a website (virtual empowerment toolkit) and conducted an online evaluation of the website. Methods: Healthcare providers, patients, and a design team engaged in an iterative 'design thinking' process (i.e., empathize, define, ideate, prototype, refine, and test) to co-design the website. Subsequently, patients with CHH were recruited and evaluated the site using the 'gold standard' Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-A/V). Scores ≥80% on PEMAT-A/V domains are considered 'high quality'. Content analysis was used to group qualitative feedback into salient themes. Results: Patients were involved from the outset and in all stages of the design thinking process. Iterative patient focus groups and online surveys were used to prioritize content and refine prototypes. In total, 58 participants (48.5 ± 14.4 years) completed the online evaluation. All PEMAT-A/V domains scored >88% (i.e., 'high quality'). Participants (47/55, 86%) rated the site 'easy to navigate', and 52/55 (95%) would recommend it to another patient. Qualitative feedback was largely positive and expressed appreciation for the online resource. Conclusion: Partnering with patients to co-design the virtual patient empowerment toolkit produced an understandable, actionable website that was responsive to patient priorities. This work supports the utility of co-creation and co-design for empowering patients with CHH and may serve as a roadmap for other rare diseases.
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.