Challenges and knowledge gaps facing hemophilia carriers today: Perspectives from patients and health care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hemophilia carriers experience abnormal bleeding symptoms; however, a lack of awareness about this topic coupled with additional knowledge gaps and barriers leads to suboptimal care for this population. Objective: The primary objective was to describe the current knowledge gaps and challenges from the perspective of both hemophilia carriers and their health care providers. Methods: We carried out a mixed methods descriptive study with two population groups between September and December 2020. The hemophilia carrier perspective was obtained through both focus groups and questionnaires, whereas the health care providers perspective obtained via questionnaire sent to the Association of Hemophilia Care Directors of Canada and the Canadian Association of Nurses in Hemophilia Care. Focus groups were analyzed using descriptive thematic analysis and quantitative survey data was also analyzed. Results: Eleven hemophilia carriers participated along with 19 health care providers (11 physicians, eight nurses). Hemophilia carrier focus group discussions identified four areas representing major challenges or knowledge gaps: (1) negative psychosocial impacts; (2) difficulty determining symptom significance; (3) need for self-advocacy; (4) testing concerns. Survey results from both groups were aligned with the most important topics for ongoing education identified as information on abnormal bleeding symptoms, where to seek treatment, and considerations for heavy menstrual bleeding/menstruation. The majority of both study groups believe obligate or potential carriers should have factor levels checked regardless of age if symptoms of abnormal bleeding occur or before an invasive procedure. However, hemophilia carriers were significantly more in favor of genetic testing under the age of consent than health care providers in all scenarios evaluated.
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 | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".