P169 DEFINITION OF REMISSION IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: ASSESSMENT OF PATIENT AND PHYSICIAN PERSPECTIVES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background A primary goal in IBD management is achieving disease remission; however, patient (pt)-physician alignment on this goal is unclear. International online surveys were conducted to gain insights into pts’ and physicians’ perspectives on real-world management of IBD. Herein, we report survey findings pertaining to their understanding and perceptions of disease remission in IBD. Methods Surveys were completed online by pts and physicians in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, and US. Using a mixed-recruitment method, pts were identified by physicians, pt advocacy groups, and panels, while physicians were identified by recruitment agencies and panels. Eligible pts were aged ≥18 y who were diagnosed with and received treatment for Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) and had not undergone surgery for UC. Eligible physicians were gastroenterologists who had treated pts with CD or UC (≥12 each) in the last month, were responsible for treatment decisions of their IBD pts, and for whom ≥30% of their IBD pts had moderate or severe disease per prespecified clinical criteria. A 1:1 CD:UC ratio was targeted for the pt survey. Alignment between pts and physicians on remission definitions and pt-physician communication about remission was assessed. Physicians’ estimates of remission rates in their moderate/severe IBD pts receiving biologic therapy and their satisfaction (1=very dissatisfied to 7=very satisfied) with remission rates with current IBD treatments also were reported. Results A total of 2398 IBD pts (1368 CD [40% male], 1030 UC [45% male]) and 654 physicians completed the surveys. Mean pt age was 42 y (CD) and 44 y (UC). Physicians had mean monthly caseloads of 42.9 (CD) and 43.3 (UC). The most common primary care settings were university/teaching hospitals (41%), private practices (31%), and regional/community hospitals (20%). Nearly one quarter of pts reported never having discussed remission with their physician; only 7% of physicians reported that they typically did not discuss remission with their pts. Pts most commonly defined remission as symptom resolution (45%), whereas most physicians defined remission through test results (64% CD, 70% UC), including colonoscopies (56% CD, 58% UC), biopsies (36%, 37%), and biochemical tests (8%, 6%). Most pts (62% CD, 64% UC) had never heard of the term “mucosal healing.” Despite low physician-reported remission rates (CD: 37%–54%; UC: 37%–55%), 25% and 36% of physicians reported high satisfaction (score ≥6) with CD and UC remission rates, respectively. Conclusions This international survey demonstrated differences in pts’ and physicians’ definitions of IBD remission and in their understanding of the role of histologic remission in IBD. The findings highlight the need for improved pt-physician communication and education regarding remission, which may improve adherence and outcomes.
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 | 0,006 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».