Enhancing lifestyle for individuals with haemophilia through physical activity and exercise: the role of physiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For individuals with haemophilia, the benefits of many forms of physical activity outweigh their risks. Although activities with significant trauma risk should be avoided, persons who have haemophilia can participate in, enjoy and even excel in a variety of physical activities and sports. Both the National Hemophilia Foundation and the World Foundation of Hemophilia have produced documents to guide individuals with haemophilia and their healthcare professionals, coaches and parents in developing physical activity programmes and participation in sports. Physical activity guidelines for promoting health benefits exist worldwide and can be incorporated into individualized exercise programmes to ensure that a person with haemophilia is not only choosing appropriate activities, but also improving overall health and preparing the body to manage haemophilia better. Physiotherapy treatment is paramount in helping individuals prevent, manage and optimally recover from bleeds. Furthermore, the physical therapist, along with the haemophilia care team, can assist in preparing an individual to begin or progress to a physical activity programme that enhances fitness level, body composition and overall well-being. This article presents the unique role of the physiotherapist in facilitating safe participation in quality physical activity in the context of risks, benefits and activity recommendations. Participation in physical activity from an early age is ideal to facilitate the development of body awareness and capability and to foster the adoption of a physically active lifestyle; however, it is never too late to start. Consistent participation in quality physical activity beginning at any age is central to managing haemophilia and, equally important, to achieving overall health and well-being.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".