ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2026
Investigation of the Content Validity, Feasibility, Internal Consistency, and Construct Validity of 5 Patient-Reported Outcome Questions on Patient Involvement in Care Among Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: Multimethods Study.
Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 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.
- Digital Outpatient Care for Patients With Type 1 Diabetes (DigiDiaS): Pragmatic Observational Pre-Post Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Validated measurement tools that focus solely on assessing adolescents' involvement in their treatment are scarce. Objective: The study aimed to validate 5 patient-reported outcome (PRO) questions regarding patient involvement in care among adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Methods: A multimethod and questionnaire design was used. A total of 447 adolescents (aged 11-18 y) completed a short questionnaire that included 5 PRO questions regarding patient involvement in their care. In total, 25 interviews were conducted with 20 adolescents, as some adolescents were interviewed twice. The content validity, feasibility, internal consistency, and construct validity of the PRO questions were analyzed. Results: Assessment of validity revealed that most participants encountered no or minor difficulties comprehending the PRO questions. The interviews demonstrated that all participants showed a satisfactory understanding of 3 of the 5 PRO questions. However, the terms "appropriate" and "experiences" posed a challenge for 3 out of 20 participants. Using data from the questionnaire, the feasibility, internal consistency, and construct validity analyses uncovered only 2 limitations in validity. First, the clinical use of the questions limits anonymity, potentially introducing bias. Second, adolescents younger than the age of 15 years had more difficulty with the item "I talked to the health care staff about the questions or concerns I had." Conclusions: The PRO questions are valid for measuring patient involvement among adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Respondents stated that the PRO questions were easy to understand, relevant, and comprehensive. There should be awareness when using the PRO questions, as they are most robust for those aged 15 years or older. Therefore, using these PRO questions in both clinical settings and research demands thoughtful consideration regarding their application and setup, particularly when considering the age of respondents and circumstances. It is worth noting that these PRO questions may pose validity challenges for use among adolescents younger than the age of 15 years with type 1 diabetes.
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.