MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942269490 · doi:10.1111/hae.13754

From the voices of people with haemophilia A and their caregivers: Challenges with current treatment, their impact on quality of life and desired improvements in future therapies

2019· article· en· W2942269490 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ryan E. Wiley, Charles P. Khoury, Adrian W.K. Snihur, Marni Williams, David Page, Nicole Graham, Lori Laudenbach, Cindy Milne‐Wren, Jayson Stoffman

Bibliographic record

VenueHaemophilia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences NorthLondon Health Sciences CentreCanadian Hemophilia Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaemophiliaMedicinePsychosocialQuality of life (healthcare)DiseaseValue (mathematics)PsychiatryNursingPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Haemophilia A is a chronic disease requiring frequent intravenous infusions of recombinant factor VIII. Previous studies have shown that challenges associated with current treatments may have significant impacts on quality of life (QoL) that are as important as the health outcomes conferred by the therapy. Emerging therapeutic innovations offer the potential to mitigate treatment-related challenges, and it is therefore important to develop a better understanding of patient and caregiver experiences with existing haemophilia A treatments in order to characterize the full value of new treatments. AIM: To gather firsthand perspectives from people with haemophilia A (PWHA) and caregivers on the challenges with current treatment, their impact on QoL and desired improvements in future therapies. METHODS: Qualitative insights were gathered from 20 non-inhibitor PWHA or caregivers of PWHA across Canada through one-on-one interviews; insights were further explored through focus group sessions to uncover overarching themes and prioritize issues with current treatments. RESULTS: PWHA and caregivers identified several challenges, including administration of intravenous infusions, coordination of treatment schedules and ensuring adequate medication and supplies. Participants described how these challenges impact psychosocial well-being, physical health, personal/social life and work. Alternate modes of administration and longer-lasting treatment effects were identified as desired improvements over current treatments. CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the impact that existing haemophilia A treatments have on psychological well-being, employment opportunities and adherence to treatment regimens. These considerations may help to inform decision-making for policymakers and health systems around the true value of new therapies entering the haemophilia market.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations57
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaemophiliaSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207