A89 EXPLORING THE ENDOSCOPY SEDATION EXPERIENCES OF INDIVIDUALS WITH PEDIATRIC-ONSET INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE (IBD) AFTER THE TRANSITION TO ADULT CARE: A PILOT STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Different sedation practices are utilized in pediatric and adult endoscopy settings. While pediatric endoscopies are performed under deep sedation, adult endoscopies are often performed under conscious sedation. Purpose This study sought to explore the experiences of patients with pediatric-onset IBD that have undergone transfer to adult care and to identify gaps in endoscopy sedation practices that may inform a larger and more comprehensive evaluation of this topic. Method A pilot study was performed at Women's College Hospital involving patients aged 18 to 25 years old with a diagnosis of pediatric-onset IBD that received endoscopies in both the pediatric and adult setting. Patients were recruited between June 1 and October 1, 2022. A 36-item questionnaire was distributed assessing sedation methods used in pediatric and adult settings, anxiety, pain, satisfaction during endoscopy and perceptions of transition of care preparation as it pertained to endoscopy. This study was reviewed by institutional authorities at WCH and was deemed not to require REB approval. Result(s) Twelve patients participated in the pilot survey study (7 Ulcerative colitis, 5 Crohn’s disease) with a mean age of 22. Of those, 100% were female and 66% did not have any comorbid conditions. The mean age of diagnosis was 12.8 years, with respondents spending an average of 67.3 months in pediatric care prior to transition. In pediatric care, the mean number of endoscopies received was 2.3 with a majority performed under deep sedation (83%). Respondents reported being very satisfied with their sedation experience (58%) and experiencing no pain (67%), however mild to severe anxiety was reported (58%). In adult care, mean endoscopies received was 2.1, with conscious sedation (50%) performed more often than deep (42%) or no sedation (8%). More respondents reported satisfaction with deep sedation (100%) than conscious sedation (67%). During conscious sedation, respondents experienced more pain (50% vs. 20%), moderate discomfort (33% vs. 0%), and were more anxious (83% vs. 60%) than in deep sedation. Factors that contributed to anxiety included fear of endoscopy and insufficient sedation. Of those who received deep sedation in the adult setting, 60% reported that the sedation method utilized impacted their future willingness for endoscopy. Lack of communication regarding sedation method, poor experiences with conscious sedation, and the desire to choose the sedation method appropriate for them were areas for improvement. Conclusion(s) This pilot study demonstrated that IBD patients transferred to adult care receive varying endoscopy sedation methods and experience differential levels of satisfaction favouring deep sedation. This is an important signal that requires larger study. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».