The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Barriers to compliance with prophylaxis therapy in haemophilia
Abstract
Prophylaxis, or the practice of routine replacement infusions of clotting factor concentrate in persons with severe haemophilia, is a demanding medical regimen. Prophylactic infusions require direct venepuncture or sterile entry into a central venous access device on a regular basis. A telephone survey was conducted to elicit information regarding the barriers to compliance with prophylaxis. The Mountain States Regional Haemophilia and Thrombosis Center has recommended prophylaxis to 52 male patients with haemophilia A or B. The haemophilia nurse attempted to contact all of these patients or their parents, and contact was made with 38 (73.1%) of them. Respondents were asked about the following issues: their decision to initiate prophylaxis; their self-rated compliance; the challenges, barriers, and facilitators of prophylaxis; and their perceived value of the therapy. Four patients (10.5%) elected not to begin prophylaxis. Of the 34 persons who began prophylaxis, 20 respondents (58.8%) rated their compliance as excellent. Nearly one-third of the families with excellent compliance (giving 75-100% of prescribed infusions) stated that the time-consuming nature of prophylaxis was the most significant challenge of the regimen. In addition, 58.3% of the families that gave less than the prescribed number of infusions reported that the time commitment was the primary reason for missing infusions. Knowledge of the benefits of prophylaxis was the primary facilitator of compliance for 44.1% of families. Ninety-seven percent of respondents rated prophylaxis as very valuable. These data show that despite the known benefits of prophylaxis, it is a demanding medical regimen, and compliance is imperfect. In addition, this study underscores the importance of providing continuing support and education for patients and families who are implementing prophylaxis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Prophylaxis versus episodic treatment to prevent joint disease in boys with severe hemophilia
Manco-Johnson, M. J., Abshire, T. C., Shapiro, A. D., Riske, B., Hacker, M. R., Kilcoyne, R., Ingram, J. D., Manco-Johnson, M. L., Funk, S., Jacobson, L., et al. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa067659 · Cited by 1,950
Self-citationVALENTINO, L. A., MAMONOV, V., HELLMANN, A., QUON, D. V., CHYBICKA, A., SCHROTH, P., PATRONE, L., & WONG, W. ‐. (2012) · Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2011.04611.x · Cited by 253
A feasibility study on two tailored interventions to improve adherence in adults with haemophilia
Hoefnagels, J. W., Fischer, K., Bos, R. A. T., Driessens, M. H. E., Meijer, S. L. A., Schutgens, R. E. G., & Schrijvers, L. H. (2020) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-020-00723-w · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Hacker, M. R., Geraghty, S., & Manco-Johnson, M.
- Venue
- Haemophilia
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-07-12
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 392-396
- ISSN
- 1351-8216 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2516
- OpenAlex
- W1990529472
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Barriers to compliance with prophylaxis therapy in haemophilia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2516.2001.00534.x
- The paper
- Hacker, M. R., Geraghty, S., & Manco-Johnson, M. (2001). Barriers to compliance with prophylaxis therapy in haemophilia. Haemophilia. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2516.2001.00534.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.