Patients’ Satisfaction with Anticoagulant Treatment for Venous Thromboembolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Data on treatment expectation and perception towards vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are sparse. Methods Prospective observational study including subjects admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of VTE and a prescription of VKA, DOAC, or a LMWH. Treatment expectations, convenience and satisfaction were assessed using the Perception of anticoagulant treatment questionnaire (PACT-Q) at baseline and at three months. Results A total of 140 patients were included. Treatment expectations regarding ease of use and the ability to self-manage anticoagulation therapy were higher in patients on DOACs. However, overall treatment satisfaction scores were similar at three months between the groups. Conclusion Patients with VTE who are prescribed an anticoagulant have different expectations at baseline but appear to have similar treatment satisfaction regardless of the type of anticoagulant prescribed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".