Table 5.
Likert scale questions relating to the care of children/adolescents with haemophilia and inhibitors.
| Question | Percentage agreement/disagreement (%) | Number of participants’ responses included in analysis (n)a | Delphi survey round |
|---|---|---|---|
| When treating children and adolescents with inhibitors on ITI, the aim is for them to not have any bleedsb | 90.9 | 22 | Round 2 |
| In children and adolescents who have failed ITI, prophylaxis with bypassing therapy should be offered, if not already initiated | 83.3 | 24 | Round 1 |
| Prophylaxis with bypassing agents is justified in children and adolescents who require joint protection | 79.2 | 24 | Round 1 |
| Restoring/maintaining a child’s or an adolescent’s lifestyle, in terms of their everyday activities, should be the main priority | 75.0 | 24 | Round 1 |
| A key aim of treatment in children and adolescents with inhibitors is to eradicate the inhibitor | 70.8 | 24 | Round 1 |
| Prophylaxis with bypassing agents is justified in children and adolescents who have had a single life-threatening bleed | 70.8 | 24 | Round 1 |
| High dose factor prophylaxis is justified in children and adolescents who are partially tolerised to ITI | 70.8 | 24 | Round 1 |
| Children and adolescents with haemophilia A and inhibitors should be treated with ITI to eradicate their inhibitors, regardless of severityc | 70.0 | 20 | Round 2 |
A total of 24 participants answered questions on paediatric care in Round 1, and 22 in Round 2. Questions achieving consensus agreement and disagreement (⩾70% participants agreeing/disagreeing with the statement) are highlighted in dark blue and light blue, respectively. Where questions did not achieve consensus in Round 1 and were carried forward to Round 2, only the Round 2 results are shown here. One participant answered the ‘adult care only’ questions in Round 1 but answered questions relating to the care of both children/adolescents and adults in Round 2. For consistency with Round 1, this participant’s Round 2 child-related responses were not included in analyses.
In Round 2, ‘IE’ responses were removed prior to analysis.
Rephrased from question in Round 1.
New question added based on free-text response in Round 1.
IE, insufficient expertise; ITI, immune tolerance induction.