Providing Disease-Related Information Worsens Health-Related Quality of Life in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have identified a need for more information about their disease. PURPOSE: To assess the effect of an educational intervention on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with IBD. METHODS: Consecutive ambulatory IBD patients were randomized to receive four IBD-specific educational booklets or usual care. Subjects completed two disease-specific HRQOL questionnaires-the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) (range 1-poor to 7-excellent) and the Quality Index in Crohn's and Colitis (QuICC) (range 1-excellent to 5-poor) at entry and after 2 weeks. The mean change in HRQOL scores at follow-up was compared between the education and control groups. RESULTS: 59 subjects participated, with a mean age of 40.0 +/- 11.9 years. 34 were given educational booklets and 25 received standard care. 6 patients (10%) did not complete the study. Mean IBDQ scores became significantly worse in the education group with a change of -0.17 +/- 0.49 compared with controls at +0.28 +/- 0.62 (p = 0.006). This could be explained by worsened disease activity in the education group. There was no significant change in the QuICC scores (p = 0.61). Education group patients who had not received prior educational material had improved mean IBDQ scores of +0.24 +/- 0.47 compared with education patients who had received educational material prior to this study, with a score change of -0.25 +/- 0.46 (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of educational booklets to IBD patients in a tertiary center does not improve, and may worsen, short-term HRQOL. Education of newly diagnosed or less informed patients should be studied further.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".