Barriers to Care Amongst Patients with Inherited Bleeding Disorders: Results from Two Nation-Wide Canadian Surveys
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The literature surrounding inequity in healthcare is robust, with factors such as socioeconomic status (SES), race, immigration status, and geographic access being extensively documented as influencers of both healthcare access and healthcare outcomes. However, the ways in which social determinants of health (SDOH) affect patients with inherited bleeding disorders remains unclear. To the best of our knowledge, no study has specifically examined for health inequities or barriers to care amongst this patient population. The objective of this study was to survey Canadian patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) regarding their perceptions around access to care and diagnostic delay. Methods: A 40 question bilingual patient survey and a 24 question HCP survey were developed and tested with experienced hematologists, a mixed-methodology research expert, and patient advocates from the Canadian Hemophilia Society (CHS). Surveys were launched online on January 1st, 2019. The HCP survey remained live for 2 months, and the patient survey for 6 months. Patient recruitment occurred through e-mails, newsletters and social media announcements through the CHS, a nation-wide patient advocacy group comprised of patients, caregivers, and supporters (N=2261). HCP recruitment occurred via e-mail to all members of The Association of Hemophilia Clinic Directors of Canada (N=73), the Canadian Association of Nurses in Hemophilia Care (N=40) and the Canadian Physiotherapists in Hemophilia Care (N=44). Results: There were 46 patient respondents (exact response rate unknown) and 70 HCP respondents (response rate of 45%). Patient ages ranged from 18-75, with 56% (N=26) of respondents being women. Diagnoses amongst patients included von Willebrand disease (VWD) (29%, N=12), hemophilia A (32%, N=13), hemophilia B (10%, N=4), hemophilia A carrier (10%, N=4), disorders of platelet function (10%, N=4), factor 7 deficiency (5%, N=2), and bleeding disorders not yet diagnosed (5%, N=2). All patient respondents described being symptomatic, with easy bruising (90%, N=38), bleeding from gums (67%, N=28), bleeding into joints (57%, N=24), and hospitalization due to bleeding being most common (60%, N=25). The majority of patients (90%, N=38) described symptoms of bleeding prior to age 18; however, 25% (N=10) estimated it took over 10 years to reach a correct diagnosis. Female gender, distance from a hemophilia treatment centre (HTC), and being sent home from the emergency room without a treatment plan or referral were identified as barriers to care. Of the HCP respondents, 76% (N=53) were women, 46% (N=32) physicians, 28% (N=20) nurses, and 26% (N=18) physiotherapists. HCPs felt that there were diagnostic delays for patients with mild symptomatology (71%, N=50), women presenting with abnormal uterine bleeding as their only or primary symptom (59%, N=41), and patients living in rural Canada (50%, N=35). Fewer HCP respondents felt that factors such as SES (46%, N=32) or race (21%, N=15) influenced access to care, particularly as compared to rural location (77%, N=54). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess patient and HCP perceptions of barriers to care for patients with inherited bleeding disorders. Vulnerable patient populations identified by patients and healthcare providers alike included women, particularly those with isolated abnormal uterine bleeding, and patients living in rural Canada, who may have less access to a HTC. This study highlights that, in order to provide equitable and person-centered care for patients with inherited bleeding disorders, SDOH should be taken into consideration. These factors warrant additional study, and will be investigated further using in-depth qualitative patient interviews with Canadian men and women. Disclosures 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 | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».