MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2901646507 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-111725

Are There Inequities in Access to Care Amongst Women with Inherited Bleeding Disorders? a Systematic Review

2018· review· en· W2901646507 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sumedha Arya, Michelle Sholzberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralSystematic reviewMEDLINEFamily medicineHealth carePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Despite the manifold symptoms women with inherited bleeding disorders experience, whether they receive timely screening and specialist referral remains unclear. While literature on this topic is sparse, studies have found that, irrespective of the hemostatic challenges women face, they are often unlikely to be referred to hematologists, subsequently remaining undiagnosed and under-treated. Recognition and early diagnosis remain paramount for management and avoidance of complications, particularly as women with bleeding disorders are at increased risk for heavy menstrual bleeding, anemia, post-partum hemorrhage, and decreased quality of life. However, to our knowledge, no studies have systematically assessed whether women face unique barriers to receiving specialist care and timely treatment. This systematic review sought to better characterize literature on access to care for women with inherited bleeding disorders. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to assess the literature on access to care for women with inherited bleeding disorders. This was conducted following the Cochrane Handbook, and reported as per Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In consultation with a health services librarian, we designed a search strategy in order to identify published papers reporting on all forms of bleeding diatheses. Inclusion criteria included all studies examining bleeding disorders and equity of care in women after the year 2000; exclusion criteria included studies written in a non-English language or only enrolling men. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed included studies for risk of bias. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa guidelines. The GRADE approach was used to assess quality of evidence. If required, additional data was sought from study authors. Results: Of 526 screened abstracts, only a small subset (N=12) explicitly focused on women's health, with the majority focusing on gynecologic and obstetric complications associated with von Willebrand Disease (VWD). There was significant heterogeneity in study methodology and populations enrolled. Only two studies explicitly studied self-reported barriers to hemophilia care, with one study largely enrolling men with hemophilia A of moderate-severe severity. Within the literature investigating barriers to care, themes that emerged included greater difficulties surrounding access to treatment for women, a tendency for hemophilia carriers to encounter dismissive healthcare provider attitudes, and ignorance around bleeding disorders in women. These studies proposed that unmet needs, particularly for women with inherited bleeding disorders, require further evaluation. However, risk of bias was found to be high, and grade of evidence low. Discussion: We sought to better characterize the literature on access to care for women with inherited bleeding disorders, and found that literature on this topic is particularly sparse. Given our lack of understanding of women's experiences, and particularly the experiences of hemophilia carriers, ongoing efforts are needed to appreciate where inequities in care may exist. Using qualitative research methodology, we will explore the experiences of women, as well as other understudied populations, who live with bleeding disorders. By identifying possible demographic, geographic, and systems level factors hindering patients' access to care, we hope to increase healthcare provider awareness around existing barriers and, through targeted interventions, promote patient self-advocacy. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.010
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemophilia Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→