Influence of medical insurance schemes and charity assistance projects on regular prophylaxis treatment of the boys with severe haemophilia A in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the influence of medical insurance policy and charity assistance projects on the uptake and discontinuation of regular prophylaxis treatment in Chinese severe haemophilia A children. METHODOLOGY: This retrospective study was conducted on children with severe haemophilia A, who received FVIII prophylaxis treatment at 12 haemophilia centres in China from 1 November 2007 to 31 May 2013. RESULTS: The average duration of prophylaxis treatment received by haemophilia children significantly increased from 16.7 weeks in 2008 to 32.8 weeks in 2012 (P < .001). The main reason for prophylaxis acceptance included dissatisfaction with previous "on-demand" regimens, availability of improved local medical insurance policies and patient/family awareness of haemophilia. The main reason for subsequent discontinuation of prophylaxis was economic instability. The upper limit of insurance was up to RMB 150 000/y (~USD: 22 000/y) for 80.1% of the insured patients and would be sufficient to cover the continuous low-dose prophylaxis regimen. However, for many patients the burden of out-of-pocket copayment cost represented a risk for poor adherence to regular prophylaxis. In about two third of the patients, the annual out-of-pocket copayment cost amounted to >50% of their average annual disposable income. Many patients therefore required assistance from the charity assistance projects, but nonadherence remained prevalent. CONCLUSION: Medical insurance policy and charity assistance projects helped haemophilia children to accept and continue prophylaxis regimens. It was the proportion of the out-of-pocket copayment cost rather than the upper limit of insurance reimbursement that restricted long-term regular low-dose prophylaxis in China.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".