A113 FACILITATORS FOR EVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTIONS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS IN PERSONS LIVING WITH IBS: A ROADMAP FOR HUMAN-CENTERED DESIGN AND IMPLENTATION
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background IBD-related psychological distress (IBD-PD) refers to the emotional impact of IBD and has been associated with increased disease severity, co-morbid mental health disorders (i.e., anxiety and depression), and increased mortality. Ensuring high-quality, patient-centered care for IBD-PD that is proportionate to the level of distress severity will address a key evidence-practice gap in our healthcare system. Aims This study aims to identify the facilitators for accessing evidence-based interventions for IBD-PD to inform the design and implementation of patient-centered models for IBD mental health support in the future. Methods This was a qualitative research study in which a semi-structured interview script was developed by a multi-disciplinary team guided by the domains of the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel framework. Participants were asked about facilitators and preferences related to psychological support services throughout their disease course. Using thematic analysis, codes were generated to identify themes using an inductive approach. Results Fourteen participants were successfully recruited (n=14). Thematic analyses identified the following major themes: 1) Mental health should be treated as an integrated component of specialty IBD care; 2) Use of self-help strategies alongside existing supports is feasible, acceptable, and accessible; 3) Accessing support for IBD-PD through virtual care is often acceptable; 4) Flexible, multifaceted delivery models for IBD-PD are needed. All participants felt that mental health should be discussed at IBD clinic visits. Preferences for a range of psychological support formats were clear. Half of the participants said that they did not access formal psychological support services. Instead, this group preferred informal support networks or self-help strategies they already had in place. Most participants felt it was important for psychological support persons to also have IBD knowledge, but there were concerns regarding access to these services. Overall, participants felt strongly that a more qualified psychologist, even in the absence of IBD knowledge, was their top priority. No single approach or setting seemed to be acceptable for everyone. This illustrated that offering hybrid formats for IBD care would provide the greatest benefit to patients. Conclusions Facilitators to accessing care start with the IBD healthcare provider, but it is important to recognize that other facilitators such as informal support through family and friends can also have an impact on care. Structural health system changes that support the delivery of integrated care still need to occur to improve overall access to multidisciplinary care. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0,216 | 0,124 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 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 ».