P006 DISCORDANCE OF COMMUNICATION PRIORITIES BETWEEN HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS AND PATIENTS WITH ULCERATIVE COLITIS: RESULTS OF A GLOBAL ULCERATIVE COLITIS NARRATIVE SURVEY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Ulcerative Colitis (UC) Narrative is a global survey of patients (pts) and gastroenterology physicians (GIs) aimed at identifying the impact of the disease and comparing and contrasting perceptions of UC burden and management approaches. We describe the prioritization of topics for discussion at routine appointments from pt and GI perspectives, and examine the potential impact of any discordance. Data are presented from 2100 pts and 1254 GIs in Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Surveys were conducted online and by phone by The Harris Poll between August 2017 and February 2018. Eligible adult pts with UC (confirmed by endoscopy) were those who had visited a GI in the previous 12 months and had ever received prescription medication for UC. Self-reported medication history was used as a proxy for disease severity, with pts with moderate to severe UC defined as pts who had ever taken immunosuppressants, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, other biologics, or corticosteroids for >4 of the past 12 months. Pts who had only ever taken 5-aminosalicylates or had a colectomy were excluded. Eligible GIs were those who saw ≥10 UC pts each month (≥5 in Japan), of whom ≥10% were taking a biologic and did not practice in a long-term care facility or hospice. Data are presented from all respondents who consented and completed the survey. Pts were a mean age of 40.8 years (standard deviation [SD] 12.4), 53% were male, and 82% had moderate to severe UC, with 67% considering their UC to be controlled with few to no symptoms. Survey responses showed some overlap between pts and GIs in their priorities for discussion at routine appointments. The top priorities selected for pts were discussions on ‘ability to manage symptoms’ (32%), ‘symptoms/problems experienced since last visit’ (29%), ‘how to control inflammation’ (29%), and ‘cancer risk’ (24%), while GIs’ highest priorities for discussion included ‘symptoms since last visit’ (53%), ‘ability to manage symptoms’ (40%), and ‘side effects of current treatment’ (40%). The greatest discordance between pt and GI prioritization was observed for cancer risk (24% vs 11%), fatigue management (16% vs 5%), emotional impact (13% vs 7%), and new medications (21% vs 15%). Both pts (63%) and GIs (79%) wish they had more time at appointments. Symptom control is a high priority for discussion among pts with UC and GIs, but other topics such as cancer risk, fatigue management, emotional impact, and new medications were viewed as less of a priority for GIs than for pts. GIs need to be mindful of those topics of greatest concern to the pt, and identify ways to discuss topics important to both parties, since shortage of appointment time is a barrier to communication.
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 | 0,008 | 0,053 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 ».