Psychosocial aspects of haemophilia: a systematic review of methodologies and findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychosocial factors have a significant impact on quality of life for patients with chronic diseases such as haemophilia. Interventions to support the psychosocial needs of patients and their families, such as offering information and assistance, clarifying doubts, and teaching coping strategies to minimize the impact of disabilities, may help to maximize patient outcomes and improve quality of life for their families. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current literature on psychosocial aspects of haemophilia. Literature searches were performed using the PubMed database to identify studies evaluating psychosocial stressors in persons with haemophilia. Articles pertaining to the HIV epidemic were excluded from the analysis, as were those published before 1997. The literature reviews identified 24 studies, covering a range of different populations, generally with small cohorts (n < 100). Most studies were questionnaire based, with almost no overlap in terms of the instruments used. Only one study combined questionnaire techniques with qualitative methods. Except for two European studies, all publications reported data from a single country. Overall, studies tended to show that quality of life is reduced in persons with haemophilia, with a potential impact on education and employment, particularly when prophylactic treatment is not available. Carrier status in women may have a psychosocial impact and affect reproductive choices. Data on psychosocial aspects of the haemophilia life cycle are lacking in the published literature, along with data from developing countries. There is a need for more international, multifaceted research to explore and quantify the social and psychological aspects of life with haemophilia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".