Patient‐centred care in haemophilia: Patient perspectives on visualization and participation in decision‐making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIM: The British Columbia Adult Haemophilia Team recently adopted a patient-centred care approach. The team presented visual information on an individual's pharmacokinetic profile and bleed history and encouraged patients to participate in treatment decisions. This qualitative study explored how this approach changed patients' understanding of haemophilia and how it facilitated them to make treatment decisions. METHODS: We interviewed 18 males with mild, moderate or severe haemophilia, using a convenience sample from the adult haemophilia clinic at St. Paul's hospital in Vancouver, Canada. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and analyzed using descriptive content analysis. RESULTS: Most participants reported that reviewing visual information with the Clinic Team helped them in their communication with their care providers during their annual review clinic appointment. Despite this improved communication, for some the most important feature of their treatment was that they had switched from on-demand treatment to prophylactic treatment in recent years and were able to prevent bleeds. Almost half of the participants reported that the visual information presented increased their understanding of haemophilia and the pharmacokinetics of coagulation factor. Three patients improved their treatment adherence or had changed their prophylaxis schedules based on this. Most participants felt that they were involved in decision-making about their treatment schedule, which they appreciated. On the other hand, two participants thought the Clinic Team should make these decisions. CONCLUSION: Participants perceived the patient-centred prophylaxis approach helpful because it enhanced communication with the Clinic Team, increased their understanding of haemophilia and pharmacokinetics of coagulation factor and facilitated treatment decisions.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".