Patient and Caregiver Perspectives on Care-Seeking During a Vaso-Occlusive Crisis in Sickle Cell Disease: Results from Qualitative Interviews in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: There is little research on care-seeking preferences during active pain crises for sickle cell disease (SCD) patients and their caregivers. The objective of this study was to identify relevant, patient or caregiver narratives of the pain crisis experience, to understand the factors that contribute to care-seeking during a pain crisis, and to identify preferences when making care-seeking decisions during a pain crisis. Patients and Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with Canadian residents with a self-reported SCD diagnosis, who were either ≥18 years of age or an adolescent between the ages of 12-18. Interviews were hosted virtually, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Results: A total of 23 individuals participated (74% female; 26% male), including six adolescents with parent dyads and 11 adults. Almost all (N = 21, 91.3%) participants were Black/African American. Participants mentioned many factors that influenced care-seeking decisions, mainly the symptom and pain experience; institutional factors (waiting time, the presence of and adherence to treatment guidelines, and the empathy or racial bias felt from medical staff); and subject-level factors (age and a flexibility in daily responsibilities). Conclusion: This study identified important institutional and subject-level considerations involved in care-seeking decisions. Most importantly, this study highlights the racial stigma faced by many patients when care-seeking in the ER and the lack of care protocol implemented, which hinders care-seeking in a dedicated medical facility. From the patient perspective, these are clear gaps to fill to encourage patients to seek and receive the care they deserve.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".