The experience of postpartum bleeding in women with inherited bleeding disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) affects 6% of all deliveries and is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide (19.7%). The incidence of PPH in women with inherited bleeding disorders is substantially greater than in unaffected women; however, estimates of relative risk are highly variable. To date, their experience with postpartum bleeding has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: We set out to explore the experience with, understanding of, and attitudes regarding postpartum bleeding among women with inherited bleeding disorders. METHODS: This qualitative study involved focused interviews of women with inherited bleeding disorders about postpartum bleeding. Women followed at a multidisciplinary clinic for women with inherited bleeding disorders who have experienced childbirth within the last 5 years were included in the study. The interview style was semistructured. Interviews continued until the point of saturation of themes. All interviews were transcribed and then analyzed using qualitative descriptive analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 10 women with inherited bleeding disorders. Themes that emerged were normalization of excessive vaginal bleeding, difficulty distinguishing normal from abnormal postpartum bleeding, and empowerment of women by having a clear delivery care plan. CONCLUSION: In this study, women with inherited bleeding disorders were desensitized to heavy vaginal blood loss. As a result, excessive postpartum bleeding was not recognized by many of the women we interviewed. Results highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary delivery care plan for these women. Findings revealed key areas for targeted multidisciplinary intervention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".