"Everything Was Blood When It Comes to Me": Understanding the Lived Experiences of Women with Inherited Bleeding Disorders
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Despite the manifold symptoms that women with inherited bleeding disorders may experience, no study has specifically sought to understand the lived experiences of these women, nor the barriers to care that they may face. Indeed, the literature on this topic remains sparse. A MEDLINE search assessing literature on access to care for women with inherited bleeding disorders yielded 526 abstracts; of these, only a small subset (N=12) focused on women's health, and less (N=2) made any note of potential barriers to care. Given the lack of data on this subject to date, the objective of this qualitative descriptive study was to understand women's lived experiences with inherited bleeding disorders, and their perceptions around access to care. Methods: A semi-structured qualitative interview guide was developed in conjunction with experienced hematologists (MS and RW), patient advocates from the Canadian Hemophilia Society (CHS; PW and DP), and a qualitative research expert (KD). Inclusion criteria for study enrollment included age ≥ 18 years old, English-speaking, and confirmed diagnosis of an inherited bleeding disorder. Women were recruited across Canada through identification by treating healthcare providers and study members of the CHS. They were then consented for telephone interview by SA. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using descriptive thematic analysis on NVIVO software. A random selection of interviews was coded by 2 team members (SA, KD) to ensure similar data interpretation. Results: Ten interviews with women with bleeding disorders were completed. Ages ranged from 24-70, and diagnoses included hemophilia B carriership (N=2), hemophilia A carriership (N=2), von Willebrand disease (N=2), disorders of platelet function (N=3) and dysfibrinogenemia (N=1). Common themes in the data included diagnostic uncertainty, affected family members, bleeding disorders' effect on life, the importance of treatment plans, experienced barriers, and access to care factors (Table 1). The most common barriers to care noted were healthcare provider dismissal of bleeding symptoms, lack of healthcare provider awareness, geographical barriers, and perceived barriers specific to women. Patients noted the importance of as-needed treatment, treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding, iron supplementation, and the need for family planning. They also highlighted the importance of access to clinic and treatment, and the need for self-advocacy. Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess lived experiences and barriers to care for women with inherited bleeding disorders. Our data indicates that women often feel dismissed by healthcare providers, and feel disempowered by not feeling understood or heard. These results may have implications for the ways in which healthcare providers communicate with their patients, particularly in the face of diagnostic uncertainty or predominantly gynecologic-related bleeding symptoms. By better understanding patients' lived experiences, providers may be able to provide more comprehensive, person-centered care. Disclosures Teitel: Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy; BioMarin: Consultancy. Sholzberg:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».