The ways in which the social drivers of health, also known as the social determinants of health (SDOH), affect health outcomes for people with inherited bleeding disorders (PwIBDs) is unclear. This systematic review of the published literature examines the impact of SDOH on health outcomes in PwIBDs. Articles that included the following parameters in PubMed informed this study: published in English between 2011–2021; available in free full text; study population diagnosed with an inherited bleeding disorder; and study measured at least one of the clinical/non-clinical outcome measures: bleeding frequency, chronic pain, mortality, quality of life (QOL), and/or cost. The main findings from the 13 included articles emphasized the unmet need for reducing the economic burden with sustainable population health strategies and treatment options for PwIBDs. Rural location was also a significant contributor to both delayed diagnosis and decreased access to care. Furthermore, the need for a multidisciplinary comprehensive care team to address physical, psychosocial, and emotional needs of PwIBDs was raised as a priority target in the desire for equitable and optimal health. This systematic literature review suggests that the SDOH are associated with inferior health outcomes and may influence the clinical progression of inherited bleeding disorders.

Background: The National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) conducted extensive all-stakeholder inherited bleeding disorder (BD) community consultations to inform a blueprint for future research. Sustaining and expanding the specialized and comprehensive Hemophilia Treatment Center care model, to better serve all people with inherited BDs (PWIBD), and increasing equitable access to optimal health emerged as top priorities. Research Design and Methods: NHF, with the American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network (ATHN), convened multidisciplinary expert working groups (WG) to distill priority research initiatives from consultation findings. WG5 was charged with prioritizing health services research (HSR); diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); and implementation science (IS) research initiatives to advance community-identified priorities. Results: WG5 identified multiple priority research themes and initiatives essential to capitalizing on this potential. Formative studies using qualitative and mixed methods approaches should be conducted to characterize issues and meaningfully investigate interventions. Investment in HSR, DEI and IS education, training, and workforce development are vital. Conclusions: An enormous amount of work is required in the areas of HSR, DEI, and IS, which have received inadequate attention in inherited BDs. This research has great potential to evolve the experiences of PWIBD, deliver transformational community-based care, and advance health equity.

No abstract