“Her Heart Matters”—Making Visible the Cardiac Pain Experiences of Women with Physical Disabilities and Heart Disease: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women with physical disabilities are faced with challenges in many aspects of life-education, work, income, relationships, as well as their general health. These women are at a greater risk of developing heart disease. This study aimed to explore the cardiac pain experiences of women with physical disabilities and heart disease within a Canadian healthcare context. METHODS: In this qualitative study, 8 women with physical disabilities and heart disease from across Canada were interviewed. They were asked about their pre-, peri-, and post-diagnostic experiences in the Canadian healthcare system. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed using a hermeneutic phenomenological approach inspired by Ricoeur. RESULTS: Two main themes were uncovered in the analysis of the transcripts, as follows: (i) the diagnostic journey; and (ii) life with cardiac symptoms and a disability. The women indicated that they had experienced difficulties in utilizing the Canadian healthcare system prior to receiving a cardiac diagnosis, including long waitlists, expensive and unreliable transport, issues with accessibility, and dealing with providers' attitudinal barriers regarding disability. Receiving a diagnosis was challenging due to poor relationships with healthcare providers; however, having a same-sex provider seemed essential to receiving adequate care. Self-managing a disability and heart disease had significant physical and psychological impact, which was lightened by financial and social supports, modified lifestyle choices, and self-advocacy. CONCLUSIONS: Women with physical disabilities are often forgotten in discussions encompassing equity and inclusion. The participants' experiences offer insight into what changes are needed within the Canadian healthcare system in order to improve outcomes for these women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".