Burden and Unmet Needs in Women with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Multinational Physician Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: ESC/ERS guidelines recognize the need for specialized care around pregnancy in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). This study explores physicians’ perceptions and recommendations for women’s health in PAH. METHODS: This is a multi-country, qualitative study of physicians providing medical care to adult women with PAH. Physicians participated in 1-hour qualitative interviews with structured and open-ended questions on perceived burden and management of PAH focusing on family planning, pregnancy, and childcare. RESULTS: In this study, 15 physicians (US=8, UK=4, Canada=3; 7 Cardiologist, 8 Pulmonologist) were interviewed. Clinical recommendations by all physicians aligned with guidelines. Overall, all physicians reported high socioeconomic burden especially poor quality of life and isolation/depression in women patients. High clinical unmet needs, especially lack of non-teratogenic and safe treatment was reported, particularly in pregnant women (N=15). See table for detailed results. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians report high burden and unmet need in women with PAH. This study highlights the continued need for specialized care for women with PAH with focus on family planning, pregnancy, and childcare. erj;64/suppl_68/PA4307/T1 T1 t1 Category Physician reported (N=15) Socioeconomic burden, n Low quality of life 15 Depression/isolation 11 High medical costs 9 Employment difficulties 10 Negative impact on interpersonal relations 6 Unmet need, n Treatment challenges 15 Delayed/misdiagnosis 10 No patient education resources 8 Guideline concordance, n Advise against pregnancy 15 Treatment changes to avoid harm to fetus 15 Multidisciplinary approach 13
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".