P757 Focusing on the future: Reducing barriers and improving access to inflammatory bowel disease specialty care across Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) is a chronic immune-mediated disease which affects nearly two million North Americans, with Canada demonstrating the highest age-adjusted incidence and prevalence rates globally. Resulting from compounding prevalence and limited resources, timely access to IBD care continues to be a widespread issue for patients and healthcare providers. Despite this pervasive issue, there has been no published research to date elucidating the patient perspective using qualitative approaches to compare and contrast the patient experience across Canada. The aim of the study was to elicit a qualitative stream of data to better understand phenomena related to access to IBD care from a patient-centered perspective. Methods Patients diagnosed with IBD (≥18 years of age) were recruited from gastroenterology clinics and communities through IBD specialists and Crohn’s & Colitis Canada. To ensure geographic diversity and representation, patients were recruited from both urban and rural regions. In order to acquire multiple access perspectives, patients were invited to bring a family member involved in their care to the focus groups. Co-facilitated by a researcher and patient-research partner, all focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded for themes. Themes were distilled through qualitative thematic analysis using Atlas.ti software to ascertain congruence or discordance of patient experiences in relation to IBD care access. Results Sixty-three participants were recruited in 14 focus groups across seven provinces. The majority of participants were female (41/63, 65%) and from urban/suburban regions (34/63, 54%). The mean age of participants was 48 years (SD=16 years, range=16 to 77 years). Thematic analyses identified four main barrier themes, each with multiple sub-themes: (1) structure/system issues (i.e. system stagnation), (2) processes (i.e. information management), (3) experiences (i.e. psychosocial support), and (4) patient as partner (i.e. autonomy, power dynamics). In response, four solution themes were proposed: (1) integration of holistic care into the clinical practice, (2) readily accessible psychosocial and nutritional support, (3) increased patient advocacy, and (4) continuity and liaison through provision of a healthcare navigator resource. Conclusion The complexity of IBD specialty care access cannot be underestimated. It is vital to possess a robust understanding of healthcare system structures, processes, and the significant impact these factors have on patients and the care received. Through the use of patient-centered exploration of barriers and facilitators, access to IBD specialty care in can be better understood and improved on both a national and international scale.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».