ReviewQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
"Reading level is just one component": best practices for cognitive debriefing patient-reported outcome instruments with pediatric populations.
Review in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to develop best practices for conducting cognitive debriefing interviews with pediatric populations by drawing on the currently available literature and insights from experts in the health-related quality of life research community.
methodsA scoping review of the literature was conducted to identify existing recommendations, considerations, and methods for conducting cognitive debriefing interviews with pediatric populations. Findings from the review informed the development of a draft set of best practices, which were subsequently reviewed and refined through a two‑round modified Delphi process. The Delphi panel was composed of experts (i.e., researchers) in patient-reported outcome instrument development and evaluation with experience conducting interviews with pediatric populations.
resultsThirty-five articles or guidance documents were included in the final scoping review, contributing insights that were used to develop a draft set of 17 best practices. Following the two rounds of review by the Delphi panel, the final set of 17 best practices, which reflects panel consensus, addresses: developing the interview guide, evaluating the characteristics of the instrument to be debriefed, and interview conduct.
conclusionThe best practices described in this article provide evidence‑based guidance that can help to standardize and strengthen the rigor of cognitive debriefing interviews with pediatric populations while potentially also improving the experience for participants. Broader implementation across drug development programs may enhance the reliability of measurement, improve the quality of pediatric participant input, and promote more patient‑centered decision‑making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.