P185 Global perception of normal life by healthcare professionals and IBD patients: mind the gap
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background For patients living with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), the ultimate treatment goal is “normal life”. However, no patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) exists to measure the level of life normality in IBD. We previously asked patients across the world (5 continents) to identify and rank-order items important to their “normal life”. The top-25 ranked items are being used for subsequent PROM development. In this study, we aimed to compare the perception of healthcare professionals (HCP) and patients with IBD on normal life. Methods IBD patients without an ostomy, pouch or significant comorbidities were interviewed in their mother tongue in 5 continents about “normal life” using a semi-structured interview guide. All items indicated as important were extracted from translated transcripts using directed content analysis (1) until saturation of items occurred. Categorisation was guided by the Wilson’s & Cleary’s Quality of Life model. (2) Second, in an online Delphi procedure, interviewed patients and HCP from each participating centre scored importance of each item on a 0-10 scale. Items scored 7 or higher by >75% were considered important to the respective group. Patient-ranked items were then presented to a patient focus group to clarify wording and merge similar items. Items merged in the patient focus group were merged similarly in HCP rankings. Third, HCP- and patient-rankings were compared. We compared top-25 items selected for PROM development and top-3 items per category. Results 45 CD and 40 UC patients spread over 6 countries were interviewed (median age 36, 56% male, 68% employed, median disease duration 7 years [IQR 4-15]) (table 1). Saturation occurred after 33 CD and 36 UC interviews, yielding 156 unique items. In the Delphi procedure, 54 patients considered 31 items important for normal life with IBD of which 25 remained after focus group discussion. 34 HCP (12 IBD nurses, 16 IBD gastroenterologists, 6 colorectal surgeons) considered 72 items important. Top-25 rankings overlapped in 15 items between patients and HCP, being 5 of 12 physical, 1 of 4 activities, 2 of 3 social, 4 of 11 psychological items and 3 of 5 circumstances (table 2). Top-3 rankings per category overlapped in 2 physical, 1 activities, 2 social, 1 psychological items and 2 circumstances (table 3). Conclusion We identified discrepancies in the perception of normal life with IBD between patients living with IBD and healthcare professionals (HCP). Of top-25 selected items for PROM development, 15 items overlapped between patients and HCP. Of top-3 items per category, the least overlap was seen in activities and psychological items. PROM development and international validation is ongoing.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».