Facilitators and barriers to care among individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Limited research has examined facilitators and barriers that affect patient care in osteogenesis imperfecta (OI). The present study seeks to identify (1) facilitators and (2) barriers to care as reported by medical providers and caregivers of individuals with OI, and (3) common themes between both stakeholder groups. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess treatment access, treatment quality, knowledge of OI, and patient mental health. Transcripts were coded, and salient themes were abstracted using thematic analysis to find themes related to barriers and facilitators to care. Theme frequencies were calculated to identify the greatest barriers and facilitators to care, according to clinicians and caregivers. RESULTS: Four primary themes emerged: (1) access; (2) multidisciplinary care; (3) patient- provider interactions; and (4) outside resources. Perceived barriers included: insurance status, location, COVID-related restrictions, lack of mental healthcare and pain management, stigma, dismissive attitudes, not understanding patients' pain, and limited resources. Perceived facilitators included telemedicine, integration of mental healthcare, compassion, openness to patients' self-management, and online resources/scientific literature. CONCLUSION: There are many factors that affect OI management. Clinicians, caregivers, and patients should collaborate to improve the quality of health care that people with OI receive.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".