Effects of Formal Education for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) suffer physical dysfunction and impaired quality of life (QOL), and need frequent health care. They often lack knowledge about their disease and desire more education. Educational interventions for other chronic diseases have demonstrated reduced health care use and increased knowledge, medication adherence and QOL. METHOD: Sixty-nine participants were randomly assigned to formal IBD education and standard of care (pamphlets and ad hoc physician education) or standard of care alone. Assessment of IBD knowledge and QOL occurred at baseline, immediately posteducation and eight weeks posteducation. Participants documented medication adherence and health care use in diaries. Patient satisfaction was assessed at the end of the study. RESULTS: The education group had higher knowledge scores (P=0.000), perceived knowledge ratings (P=0.01) and patient satisfaction (P=0.001). There was a lower rate of medication nonadherence and health care use for the education group, but the differences were not significant. QOL indices did not change. Significant correlations were found for increased health care use in patients with poorer medication adherence (P=0.01) and lower perceived health (P=0.05). CONCLUSION: Formal IBD patient education improves knowledge, perceived knowledge and patient satisfaction. Further study of long-term effects may better demonstrate potential benefits for QOL, medication adherence and health care use.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".