Adherence to prophylaxis is associated with better outcomes in moderate and severe haemophilia: results of a patient survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe haemophilia is associated with bleeding into joints and development of arthropathy. Prophylactic treatment with infusion of replacement clotting factor is known to prevent bleeding, preserve joint functioning and result in higher health-related quality of life (HRQoL) than episodic treatment; however, adhering to standard prophylaxis schedules can be difficult, and little is known about the relationship between adherence to prophylactic treatment and outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between self-reported adherence to prophylaxis and health outcomes, including HRQoL and bleeding episodes. Adults with haemophilia (n = 55) and caregivers of children with haemophilia (n = 55) in Australia, Canada, and the United States completed an online questionnaire which included measures of HRQoL (SF-12v2 for adults and SF-10 for caregivers of children), self-reported bleeding episodes, and the VERITAS-Pro measure of adherence to prophylaxis in haemophilia. Regression analysis was used to test the association between VERITAS-Pro total score and outcomes. Poorer adherence (higher VERITAS-Pro scores) was associated with a greater number of self-reported bleeding episodes in the past year among adults (p < 0.01), more days of work/school missed among paediatric patients (p < 0.01), and lower physical health status scores among paediatric patients (p < 0.05). This study highlights the benefits of adherence to prophylaxis among those with severe haemophilia and provides evidence for the utility of the VERITAS-Pro by demonstrating a relationship between adherence and outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".