Health-related quality of life in functional GI disorders: focus on constipation and resource utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Functional GI disorders are common in the general population. However, their impact on health status and health resource use in Canada has not been well examined. We describe 1) health-related quality of life in Canadians with functional constipation or other functional GI disorders versus Canadian normative data or those without a functional GI disorder and 2) health resource utilization in subject's self-reporting of constipation. METHODS: An independent research firm was employed to conduct a randomly selected national survey examining GI symptoms and personal health. Household members 18 yr or older were recruited by a random-digit dial technique. Participants were then mailed a questionnaire and data were retrieved by a follow-up phone call. All functional GI disorders were defined using Rome II criteria, and constipation was further defined using self-report. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the Short Form 36. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred forty-nine subjects (49.3% male) with a mean age of 42.2 yr completed the survey. The prevalence of any Rome II functional GI disorder was 61.7%. The rate of functional constipation was 14.9%, whereas that of self-reported constipation was 27.2%. The mean physical and mental component summary and eight subscores of the Short Form 36 were significantly lower (p < 0.05) than Canadian norms for both self-reported constipation and Rome II functional constipation. Subjects with no GI disorder had significantly better Short Form 36 scores than the Canadian norms. The rate of physician visits for constipation was strongly predicted by the physical component of the Short Form 36. Most subjects (66.2%) were satisfied with their current constipation treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Constipation is common in the Canadian population and significantly impairs health-related quality of life. Poor quality of life is an important predictor of health care utilization in these subjects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".