“Part of the Ritual”: Exploring Patient and Physician Decision Making Regarding Anticoagulation Use in Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antiphospholipid syndrome is associated with recurrent pregnancy loss. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and/or aspirin (ASA) prophylaxis during pregnancy to prevent future loss is based on limited trial data with mixed results. OBJECTIVES: Given the clinical equipoise, we sought to understand how patients and physicians navigate the decision-making process for use of LMWH and/or ASA in pregnancy. METHODS: We interviewed 10 patients and 10 thrombosis physicians in Ottawa, Canada from January 2017 to March 2018. Patients who had ≥1 late pregnancy loss or ≥2 early losses and persistently positive antiphospholipid antibodies based on the revised Sapporo/Sydney criteria were identified in the a Thrombosis Clinic. Patients were also identified by the TIPPS Study screening logs of excluded patients. Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively, in keeping with constructivist grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Our analysis generated three themes, present across both patient and physician interviews, which captured a patient-led decision-making experience: (1) managing high stakes, (2) accepting uncertainty, and (3) focusing on safety. Patients and physicians acknowledged the high emotional burden and what was at stake: avoiding further pregnancy loss. Patients responded to their situation by taking action (i.e., using LMWH injections became a "ritual"), whereas physicians reacted by removing themselves from the final decision by "[leaving] it up to the patient." CONCLUSION: Our findings should be considered when designing future research on studying the role for LMWH/ASA in this population, as it suggests that the perceived benefits of treatment go beyond improving pregnancy rates. Rather, patients described potential benefit from the process of taking action, even in the absence of a guaranteed good outcome.
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 | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".