MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4385872093 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad480

Disparity in diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease in women: a call to joint action from the European Society of Cardiology Patient Forum

2023· article· en· W4385872093 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary Galbraith, Inga Drossart

Notice bibliographique

RevueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineCall to actionDiseaseInternal medicineAction (physics)CardiologyIntensive care medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in women worldwide1 but remains understudied, under-recognised, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. In 2021, the Lancet women and cardiovascular disease Commission published a comprehensive document1 outlining the current state of women’s cardiovascular health landscape. It summarized existing evidence, identified knowledge gaps, and made recommendations in a bid to reduce the global burden of cardiovascular disease in women. This evidence goes back to as early as 1959,2 but while there are attempts to address some of these concerns, the reality and experience for ‘us’, the female patients on the ground, remains largely unchanged. For this reason, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Patient Forum recently established a workstream on CVD in women. Regardless of what type of heart condition they were diagnosed with, female members of the Forum all too often felt that their gender caused delays in diagnosis and treatment. There is a mounting sense of frustration among female patients, their families, and caregivers. While they welcome the increase in literature on women’s heart health in circulation, and the tremendous effort of a few, they feel this literature must be falling on deaf ears and the call to action is ignored. There seems to be no noticeable change on the ground. ‘The paramedic contacted our community hospital for further advice—but the doctor suggested that I had possibly had an anxiety/panic attack and said I could be left at home’, remembers Mary Galbraith, spokesperson of the workstream, who was diagnosed with spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) only because the paramedic overruled the doctor’s advice and took her to the hospital. ‘As a teenage girl, I was repeatedly told by our family doctor that my constant exhaustion was puberty-related and rather typical for girls my age. He did notice an abnormally fast heart rate but put this down to nervosity or anxiety’, recalls Inga Drossart who suffered for years from a nearly permanent supraventricular tachycardia before finally seeing a specialist and being correctly diagnosed and treated. Female patients themselves have become so accustomed to hearing such stories of cardiovascular misdiagnosis. A conversation across a dinner table at a social event reveals yet another story of a delayed CVD diagnosis; a friend was re-telling how their primary physician played down symptoms while they were actually experiencing a heart attack; a mother was told her symptoms were down to being post-partum and she was too young to be having symptoms of a heart attack; or a patient was told she was just anxious. Other patients are finding it increasingly hard to control their emotions about misdiagnosis—whether it is anger, frustration, disappointment, or the feeling of being neglected. ‘For heaven’s sake, why is this (still) happening?!’, they want to cry out. Have we accepted these statistics are the ‘norm’? Crucially, the statistics prove the female patient experiences are sadly accurate. But what about the thousands of women who don’t even make it on to a cardiac performance audit? The statistics mark only a protruding ‘tip of the iceberg’ of sex/gender healthcare-related disparities and sadly point to systemic care pathways lacking in nuances and considerations of the female anatomy and the female experience. Unconscious biases (which we are all guilty of) leak onto the floors of the emergency departments and primary physician’s offices. There are two sides to every story. Women themselves delay in seeking care. Furthermore, they may describe symptoms in a manner different to men. Why do women not grasp the urgency to both prevent and act on heart matters? Workstream member Maria Psarra-Parker, who comes from Greece, explains why women may delay seeking care: ‘In many traditions, women still occupy the central role in family life. They may often be juggling an array of roles and carrying the burden of domestic responsibility—leaving little time to consider their own health and well-being needs.’ Ingrid de Laval adds: ‘Women have been conditioned to be “good girls”, not to disturb or make a fuss!’ There are many complex layers, and each needs addressing from public health messaging, health education, physician training, to research funding. Being asked for possible solutions and actions to be taken, workstream member Carolyn Crawford says: ‘Increased knowledge bolsters confidence and increases heart health awareness. Women are less likely to be “fobbed off” or be worried about “bothering” their healthcare provider if they have more information from a trusted source about their condition.’ And Jim Ainslie goes beyond educating only women: ‘To help tackle this and other inequities, we need better education in identifying CVD in women. Educational programmes for doctors, scientists, allied healthcare professionals and ALL in our communities’. A first action the workstream members took was to use International Women’s Day on March 8 to raise awareness via the ESC social media channels. Furthermore, there are plans to develop women-specific heart health checklists that healthcare professionals and women can use to start the conversation. There remains a lot of work to be done, and it is critical that all stakeholders join forces to reduce the disparities that still exist—researchers, healthcare professionals, politicians, and last but not the least people/patients like us, the members of the ESC Patient Forum. Many thanks to all members of the ESC Patient Forum Workstream on CVD in Women who contributed—James Ainslie1, Carolyn Crawford1, Ingrid de Laval1, and Maria Psarra Parker1. All authors declare no conflict of interest for this contribution.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,064
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,064
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,338

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0640,093
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,003
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,008
Communication savante0,0130,020
Science ouverte0,0050,015
Intégrité de la recherche0,0510,045
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0270,006

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,089
Tête enseignante GPT0,323
Écart entre enseignants0,235 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEuropean Heart JournalMême sujetAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchTravaux en français237 207