What should men living with severe haemophilia need to know? The perspectives of Canadian haemophilia health care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Haemophilia is a complex disease to manage. Home-based management of haemophilia has placed greater responsibility for disease management on individuals with haemophilia, heightening the individual's need for knowledge, particularly among individuals with severe haemophilia. The aim of this study was to identify and understand the knowledge needs and gaps of Canadian men with severe haemophilia from the perspectives of health care providers. A qualitative approach was undertaken. Data were collected using semi-structured focus groups and interviews with health care providers from Haemophilia Treatment Centres (HTCs) across Canada; data were analysed using thematic analysis. Three focus groups and two interviews were conducted; 13 individuals participated in this study. Health care providers identified the following areas of knowledge required by men with severe haemophilia: disease pathology, causes and consequences of bleeds, bleed prevention, recognition, treatment, how and when to access support, activity selection and risk reduction, benefits of exercise, genetic inheritance patterns, impact on career selection, travel and ageing. Knowledge gaps and challenges to knowledge provision were highlighted. In addition, providers emphasized the influences of timing, rapport and context on readiness to receive and assimilate information and recommended tailoring education to the individual and creating a developmental curriculum and knowledge assessment tool. Provision and uptake of disease knowledge is essential to patient self-management. To effectively receive, retain and assimilate information, individuals with severe haemophilia require the right information, from the right source, at the right time. Education should be tailored to the needs of the individual, provided throughout the lifespan.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".