MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281492445 · doi:10.2196/30573

Identifying Barriers to Enrollment in Patient Pregnancy Registries: Building Evidence Through Crowdsourcing

2022· article· en· W4281492445 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeanne M. Pimenta, Jeffery L. Painter, Kim Gemzoe, Roger A. Levy, Marcy Powell, Paige Meizlik, Gregory Powell

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsCrowdsourcingMedicinePregnancyBelimumabFamily medicineImmunologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Enrollment in pregnancy registries is challenging despite substantial awareness-raising activities, generally resulting in low recruitment owing to limited safety data. Understanding patient and physician awareness of and attitudes toward pregnancy registries is needed to facilitate enrollment. Crowdsourcing, in which services, ideas, or content are obtained by soliciting contributions from a large group of people using web-based platforms, has shown promise for improving patient engagement and obtaining patient insights. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to use web-based crowdsourcing platforms to evaluate Belimumab Pregnancy Registry (BPR) awareness among patients and physicians and to identify potential barriers to pregnancy registry enrollment with the BPR as a case study. METHODS: We conducted 2 surveys using separate web-based crowdsourcing platforms: Amazon Mechanical Turk (a 14-question patient survey) and Sermo RealTime (a 11-question rheumatologist survey). Eligible patients were women, aged 18-55 years; diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); and pregnant, recently pregnant (within 2 years), or planning pregnancy. Eligible rheumatologists had prescribed belimumab and treated pregnant women. Responses were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: Of 151 patient respondents over a 3-month period (n=88, 58.3% aged 26-35 years; n=149, 98.7% with mild or moderate SLE; and n=148, 98% from the United States), 51% (77/151) were currently or recently pregnant. Overall, 169 rheumatologists completed the survey within 48 hours, and 59.2% (100/169) were based in the United States. Belimumab exposure was reported by 41.7% (63/151) patients, whereas 51.7% (75/145) rheumatologists had prescribed belimumab to <5 patients, 25.5% (37/145) had prescribed to 5-10 patients, and 22.8% (33/145) had prescribed to >10 patients who were pregnant or trying to conceive. Of the patients exposed to belimumab, 51% (32/63) were BPR-aware, and 45.5% (77/169) of the rheumatologists were BPR-aware. Overall, 60% (38/63) of patients reported belimumab discontinuation because of pregnancy or planned pregnancy. Among the 77 BPR-aware rheumatologists, 70 (91%) referred patients to the registry. Concerns among rheumatologists who did not prescribe belimumab during pregnancy included unknown pregnancy safety profile (119/169, 70.4%), and 61.5% (104/169) reported their patients' concerns about the unknown pregnancy safety profile. Belimumab exposure during or recently after pregnancy or while trying to conceive was reported in patients with mild (6/64, 9%), moderate (22/85, 26%), or severe (1/2, 50%) SLE. Rheumatologists more commonly recommended belimumab for moderate (84/169, 49.7%) and severe (123/169, 72.8%) SLE than for mild SLE (36/169, 21.3%) for patients trying to conceive recently or currently pregnant. Overall, 81.6% (138/169) of the rheumatologists suggested a belimumab washout period before pregnancy of 0-30 days (44/138, 31.9%), 30-60 days (64/138, 46.4%), or >60 days (30/138, 21.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In this case, crowdsourcing efficiently obtained patient and rheumatologist input, with some patients with SLE continuing to use belimumab during or while planning a pregnancy. There was moderate awareness of the BPR among patients and physicians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.154
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.375
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1540.375
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207