A61 FOCUSING ON THE FUTURE: REDUCING BARRIERS AND IMPROVING ACCESS TO IBD SPECIALTY CARE ACROSS CANADA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Canada has the highest global age-adjusted incidence and prevalence rates of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). Resulting from compounding prevalence and limited resources, timely access to specialty care is a challenge faced by patients and healthcare providers. Despite this issue, there has been no published research elucidating the patient perspective using qualitative approaches to compare and contrast the patient experience across Canada. Aims To elicit a qualitative data stream to better understand phenomena related to access to healthcare for Canadians living with IBD 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 urban and rural regions. In order to acquire multiple access perspectives, patients were invited to bring a family member who was involved in their care to the focus groups. Co-facilitated by a researcher and a patient research partner, the focus groups were held in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. All focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded for themes. Themes were distilled through qualitative thematic analysis using Atlas.ti software to ascertain congruence or discordance of IBD specialty care access experiences. Results A total of 63 participants were recruited in fourteen 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). Preliminary analyses illustrated three patient-identified access barrier themes: 1) Lack of multidisciplinary care (psycho-social and nutrition support), 2) Diagnostic delay, and 3) Inability to effectively receive and provide communication with healthcare providers. In response, four solutions were proposed: 1) Integration of holistic care into the clinical practice, 2) Readily accessible psycho-social and nutritional support, 3) Increased patient advocacy, and 4) Continuity and liaison through provision of a healthcare navigator resource. Conclusions The complexity of specialty care access for IBD patients in Canada 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 Canada can be better understood and improved on both a provincial and national scale. Funding Agencies CIHRNova Scotia Health Authority Research Fund
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 | 0,007 |
| 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 | 0,016 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| 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 ».