P002 IBD PARTNERSHIPS: UNDERSTANDING PATIENTS VS. CLINICIANS PERSPECTIVES OF IBD TREATMENT OPTIONS TO IMPROVE SHARED DECISION-MAKING
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The patient is the only constant in the care journey, the person who experiences both processes and the outcomes of care. There is an international shift towards including patients as equal partners in research. Co-producing research with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients to understand their values, needs and priorities when making treatment decisions will potentially improve shared decision-making between IBD patients and their Healthcare Providers (HCPs). To facilitate this process patients and HCPs must have a common understanding of expected medication benefits, risks and the potential impact on quality of life. The information available to facilitate this conversation must be aligned and reflect the priorities that IBD Patients and Healthcare Providers consider when making treatment decisions. Both parties can then share information and work towards an agreement to what treatment plan should be implemented. Aims To understand what matters most to IBD patients when making treatment decisions by conducting a qualitative patient-led peer to peer study which will inform the development of an IBD patient and HCP survey. Methods IBD patients (≥ 18 years of age) were recruited through the IBD clinic at the University of Calgary and via social media. Focus groups were held in three separate provinces (British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario) in both rural and urban locations. The focus groups were facilitated by a Patient Engagement Researcher to alleviate any potential power dynamics and to create a safe space for IBD patients to share their perspectives. A participatory action research approach was used to encourage co-production with participants throughout the focus groups. The focus groups were audio recorded. Flip charts and sticky notes were used for brainstorming and prioritization exercises. All audio and written data were transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to identify emerging themes and patient priorities. Results A total of 21 participants attended the focus groups from both rural and urban locations. Participant diversity ranged in ethnicity and age. Most of the participants were female (18 females and 3 males) of which 4 were biologic naïve and 17 were biologic exposed. The Top 5 IBD Patient Priorities when making treatment decisions are 1) Risks(more serious/long term) 2) Education(Support/Evidence Based Information/Resources) 3) Side Effects(short term/less serious) 4) Efficacy 5) Impact(Quality of Life/ Lifestyle/Logistics). Conclusions Co-producing research ‘with’ and ‘by’ IBD patients helped to generate priorities that matter most to patients when making treatment decisions. The patient priorities will help in the development of an IBD Patient and HCP survey. The results from the two surveys will be compared to understand patient vs. HCP perspectives.
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 | 0,025 | 0,060 |
| 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 | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,001 |
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 ».