Qualitative assessment of the emotional and behavioural responses of haemophilia A carriers to negative experiences in their medical care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous discussions with haemophilia A (HA) carriers suggested that carriers may experience inappropriate care, resulting in poor relationships with healthcare providers (HCPs; principally physicians and nurses), and unfortunate and extreme emotional and behavioural responses. This was a qualitative study to explore medical experiences of HA carriers and their emotional and behavioural responses. Eleven HA carriers and five Haemophilia Treatment Centre nurses were interviewed. Themes were identified using QSR NVivo 8.0. Carriers and nurses reported HA-related bleeding symptoms in carriers, including life-threatening haemorrhage following injury or medical intervention. Menorrhagia was common and distressing. Negative carrier experiences were related in the determination of genotypic and phenotypic status, management, precautions and HCP attitude, including dismissing carriers' symptoms, concerns or requests for care. Carriers responded with mistrust, lost confidence, disappointment, fear, anxiety, doubt of self or child, discussing experiences, avoidance of healthcare and self-treatment. Dismissive HCP attitudes, ignorance about bleeding disorders in women and unique aspects of the carrier population appear to make errors more likely. This study indicates that carriers experience inappropriate care and encounter dismissive attitudes, and respond emotionally and behaviourally. Our model suggests that systematic medical errors aggravate a negative feedback loop leading to negative emotional and behavioural responses and worsening carrier care. Improved carrier care policies and increased awareness of women's bleeding disorders may improve this situation. Further research is needed to determine whether the themes identified in this study accurately reflect the experiences of carriers in general.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".