“The healthcare system did fail me repeatedly”: a qualitative study on experiences of healthcare among Canadian women with Cushing’s syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a rare endocrine disorder, Cushing's Syndrome (Cushing's) is characterized by numerous symptoms and a non-specific presentation, leading to a delay to diagnosis for patients with this disease. To date, research examining the lived experiences of patients with Cushing's in healthcare is absent in the literature. This preliminary inquiry into the healthcare experiences of women with Cushing's aimed to examine the utility of this line of inquiry to support the patient centered care of individuals with Cushing's. METHODS: Seven women from across Canada with endogenous Cushing's participated in the study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted examining participants' healthcare and body-related experiences with Cushing's. Results pertaining to healthcare experiences were analyzed for the current study using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes emerged whereby women with Cushing's experienced (1) a lack of patient centered care, characterized by provider miscommunication and medical gaslighting; (2) a misunderstanding of their symptoms as related to weight gain; (3) weight stigma in healthcare encounters; and (4) a shift in their quality of care following diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the importance of patient centered care as well as the negative impact of commonly reported barriers to patient centered care. Cushing's specific barriers to patient centered care may include weight stigma as well as the rare incidence of Cushing's. Further research is needed to better understand the healthcare experiences of people with Cushing's in Canada.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".