What should men living with haemophilia need to know? The perspectives of <scp>C</scp>anadian men with haemophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Haemophilia is an inherited bleeding disorder affecting approximately 3000 Canadian men (Walker 2012). To manage their disease effectively individuals must be knowledgeable about the disease, bleed prevention strategies, treatment approaches, and complications. Data on individuals' knowledge levels are scarce. The availability of such data could lead to better educational strategies for disease management. The aim of this study was to determine current knowledge levels, needs and gaps among Canadian individuals with haemophilia to facilitate optimal disease management. A survey was disseminated to adult males with haemophilia at three Haemophilia Treatment Centres (HTCs) in Canada. Self-reported current knowledge levels and knowledge seeking were measured. Survey respondents reported highest levels of knowledge in the following areas: identifying and treating a bleed, haemophilia and physical activity, travel, career issues and genetics. Lower levels of knowledge were reported in the areas of sexual activity, product safety, information about factor, haemophilia and ageing, advocacy, timing of prophylactic infusions, and new or alternative therapies. Treating a bleed was the most commonly sought information, followed by information about factor, product safety, identifying a bleed and other health care issues. There was a positive correlation between knowledge seeking and severity of disease. HTC attendance was associated with knowledge seeking, and HTCs were the most frequented knowledge source, followed by the Canadian Haemophilia Society website. Canadian men were well informed; the HTC's role in knowledge sharing was recognized. Timing of infusions, sexual activity and ageing are areas which should be targeted in knowledge sharing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".