Cross-cultural variation in disease-related concerns among patients with inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to study cross-cultural variations in the impact of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on health-related quality of life by an international comparison of disease-related concerns. METHODS: Item and factor scores on the Rating Form of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patient Concerns and overall mean concern levels were compared by analysis of variance among 2002 IBD patients in eight countries. RESULTS: The overall level of concern varied from 51 out of 100 in Portugal to 19 in Sweden, with intermediate scores for Italy (43), Canada (40), United States (39), France (39), Austria (33), and Israel (25). Having surgery, an ostomy, the uncertain nature of the disease, and medication side effects were each rated among the first five in importance in six countries. Other items varied considerably. For example, concern regarding pain and suffering was high in Israel and low in Portugal, whereas concern over developing cancer was low in Italy. Concern over financial issues and access to high-quality health care were inversely associated with measures of national economic prosperity. CONCLUSIONS: 1) Cross-cultural comparisons of patient concerns related to IBD are feasible using translated scales. 2) Reporting tendencies vary greatly; within Europe, patients from southern countries report greater overall concern. 3) The complications and the variable evolution of disease elicit general concern, but the importance of specific issues varies among countries. 4) The reasons for national differences may have social, cultural, and/or economic determinants with relevance to the patient-physician relationship, patient education, and therapeutic decision making.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".