Socioeconomic participation of persons with hemophilia: Results from the sixth hemophilia in the Netherlands study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: Treatment availability and comprehensive care have resulted in improved clinical outcomes for persons with hemophilia. Recent data on socioeconomic participation in the Netherlands are lacking. This study assessed participation in education, in the labor market, and social participation for persons with hemophilia compared with the general male population. Methods: = 1009) participated in a questionnaire study that included sociodemographic, occupational, and educational variables. Clinical characteristics were extracted from electronic medical records. General population data were extracted from Statistics Netherlands. Social participation was assessed with the PROMIS Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities short form, with a minimal important difference set at 1.0. Results: Data from 906 adults and children were analyzed. Participation in education of 20 to 24 year olds was 68% (general male population: 53%). Educational attainment was higher compared with Dutch males, especially for severe hemophilia. Absenteeism from school was more common than in the general population. The employment-to-population ratio and occupational disability were worse for severe hemophilia than in the general population (64.3% vs. 73.2% and 14.7% vs. 4.8%, respectively), but similar for nonsevere hemophilia. Unemployment was 5.4% (general male population: 3.4%). Absenteeism from work was less common (38% vs. 45.2%). Mean PROMIS score was similar to or higher than in the general population (54.2; SD 8.9 vs. 50; SD 10). Conclusion: Socioeconomic participation of persons with nonsevere hemophilia was similar to the general male population. Some participation outcomes for persons with severe hemophilia were reduced.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".