Blood transfusion in haematology: A qualitative exploration of patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Repeated blood transfusions are indicated for the management of patients with cancer or blood disorders. Patients' perceptions about transfusions may be associated with decision-making and coping, which has been under-explored in the haematology context. This study therefore aimed to explore haematology transfusion patients' and HCPs' perceptions of blood transfusion, drawing on theory and previously identified themes of transfusion perceptions. DESIGN: Semi-structured interview study with 14 adult blood transfusion patients and 14 HCPs (consultants, registrars, nurses) at two UK haematology units. METHODS: Patient- and HCP-tailored topic guides were developed based on themes of blood transfusion perceptions identified in a systematic review: 'Health benefits', 'Safety/risk', 'Negative emotions', 'Alternatives' 'Decision making' and 'Necessity'. Transcripts were analysed using deductive and thematic analysis. Patient and HCP themes were compared using triangulation methods. Conceptual models (one for patients, one for HCPs) specific to haematology portraying the association between themes were developed. RESULTS: Findings for patients and HCPs converged with transfusion reported as beneficial for patients, who were largely involved in the decision-making. Both groups also reported concerns about transfusion, including iron-overload, allergic reactions and challenges to deliver transfusions in time-pressurized services. Themes in the conceptual models included patient 'Burden' of receiving repeated transfusions and 'Supportive relationships', reflective of patients' positive interactions with other patients and HCPs in the haematology unit. CONCLUSION: Despite the challenges for patients receiving repeated transfusions, convergent perceptions suggest a shared understanding of patients' transfusion experiences. Identified challenges could inform ways to improve transfusion services and patients' experiences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".