Handheld computers and paper diaries for documenting the use of factor concentrates used in haemophilia home therapy: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recently published randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed that adherence to infusion diary record keeping was improved by the use of handheld computers. In this study, attitudes to record keeping were explored and patient preferences regarding the method of recording determined for the patients who participated in the trial. Qualitative study consisting of individual semi-structured interviews with 20 severely affected patients with haemophilia who participated in an RCT. Individuals were purposefully sampled based on their recent method of record keeping and whether child or adult. Analysis employed a constant comparative method to identify key themes from the data. Most individuals (19 of 20, 95%) considered record keeping to be important. They readily identified reasons to keep records: to benefit themselves, their families, clinical staff, product distributors and manufacturers. Keeping records helps them: feel a part of the health care team; have confidence they would be notified of product recalls; review their past history; improve their ability to advocate for themselves and improve communication among all parties. Record keeping, particularly when using paper diaries, can be burdensome and a challenge to maintain consistently. All 10 individuals (100%) who had used both paper diaries and handheld computers preferred the latter. Most patients understand that record keeping can be of benefit to them. Clinics can use this knowledge to inspire other patients by developing educational programmes that de-emphasize authority. In addition, given the evidence of both patients' preference for handheld computers, and the effectiveness of this approach documented in an RCT, switching to handheld computers is likely to improve record keeping.
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 | 0.040 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".