Treatment decision‐making among Canadian youth with severe haemophilia: a qualitative approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first generation of young men using primary prophylaxis is coming of age. Important questions regarding the management of severe haemophilia with prophylaxis persist: Can prophylaxis be stopped? At what age? To what effect? Can the regimen be individualized? The reasons why some individuals discontinue or poorly comply with prophylaxis are not well understood. These issues have been explored using predominantly quantitative research approaches, yielding little insight into treatment decision-making from the perspectives of persons with haemophilia (PWH). Positioning the PWH as a source of expertise about their condition and its management, we undertook a qualitative study: (i) to explore and understand the lived experience of young men with severe haemophilia A or B and (ii) to identify the factors and inter-relationships between factors that affect young men's treatment decision-making. This manuscript reports primarily on the second objective. A modified Straussian, grounded theory methodology was used for data collection (interviews) and preliminary analysis. The study sample, youth aged 15-29, with severe haemophilia A or B, was chosen selectively and recruited through three Canadian Haemophilia Treatment Centres. We found treatment decision-making to be multi-factorial and used the Framework method to analyze the inter-relationships between factors. A typology of four distinct approaches to treatment was identified: lifestyle routine prophylaxis, situational prophylaxis, strict routine prophylaxis and no prophylaxis. Standardized treatment definitions (i.e.: 'primary' and 'secondary', 'prophylaxis') do not adequately describe the ways participants treat. Naming the variation of approaches documented in this study can improve PWH/provider communication, treatment planning and education.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".