143 Rh-Disease Awareness and Prevention (RhAP): Knowledge Assessment of Obstetrical Patients
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Primary Subject area Maternal-Fetal Medicine Background Rhesus hemolytic disease of the newborn (RhD) was once the most common and severe form of hemolytic disease of the newborn with outcomes including anemia, jaundice, stillbirth and death. Approximately 15% of Canadian women are Rh-negative, yet RhD is relatively unknown due to prevention by Rh immunoglobulin (RhIG). There is a need to advocate for the ongoing prevention of RhD in high-income countries (HICs) due to low incidence, vaccine hesitancy and misinformation, and in low-income countries (LICs) where lack of access to RhIG contributes to over 350,000 annual cases worldwide. Objectives Our present aim is to assess the current state of knowledge of RhD among women in our centre. Design/Methods Questionnaires were administered to a consecutive sample of pregnant women of all blood types (5-42 weeks gestation) attending an urban Obstetrics Clinic between January - March 2020, and included demographics and self-reporting of current RhD awareness. Results Of the 586 participants surveyed, 43% did not know their blood type and 16% identified as Rh-negative (Table 1). Sixty-one percent of participants recalled receiving information about their blood type, and only 31% knew their partner’s blood type. Only 45% of the Rh-negative subset (Table 2) in their third trimester (or postpartum) knew that they had been given RhIG (routinely offered at 28 weeks gestation). While 84% of Rh-negative women had received information about RhD from various sources (physician, online, etc.), there was a lack of depth in their knowledge with two-thirds having no knowledge of the common sequelae of RhD. The majority of Rh-negative participants expressed interest in contributing to local efforts (58/92), including interest in our advocacy group. Conclusion As expected, many participants did not know their Rh status, despite routine testing in pregnancy. Many were unaware of the potential sequelae associated with RhD and rationale for its prevention, even in the Rh-negative subgroup. Not all Rh-negative women were aware of having received RhIG, presumably having received it without knowledge or understanding. We are concerned that lack of awareness, especially among Rh-negative women in HICs may lead to increased complacency, RhIG refusal, and missed opportunities for patient self-advocacy. Our questionnaire results provide further impetus to advocate for increased RhD education for the patients and their care providers. Next steps include the creation of a patient-led focus group that aims to improve local and global awareness of RhD to help decrease the burden of this potentially devastating and preventable disorder.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».