Evaluation of Educational Programs in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the status of patient knowledge in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potential benefit of educational programs. The authors conducted this study to assess 1) the knowledge of IBD of participants attending educational workshops offered to the public and 2) the effect of the workshop on participants' knowledge level. METHODS: Workshops on IBD were offered to the public at nine communities in the United States. Each workshop consisted of a combination of 3 hours of presentations and question-and-answer sessions. Participants, including patients with IBD and their parents, spouses, siblings, friends, and significant others, were asked to complete the Crohn's and Colitis Knowledge Score questionnaires just before (Q1) and immediately after (Q2) the workshop and approximately 3 months later (Q3). The authors scored one point for each correct answer to the 30 questions in the Crohn's and Colitis Knowledge Score. RESULTS: Of the 734 who completed the Q1, 33.7% gave correct answers for questions about IBD complications, 36.2% for treatment, 61.4% for general knowledge, and 64.8% for diet. After the workshop, the proportion for these four knowledge areas increased by 11.0% to 19%. For the participants who completed all of the three questionnaires and answered all the 30 questions (N=59), the mean score was 18 at Q1, 22 at Q2 (p<0.001, Q2 vs. Q1), and 21 at Q3 (p<0.001, Q3 vs. Q1). CONCLUSIONS: The public's general knowledge of IBD is low. Educational programs oriented toward IBD improve participant's knowledge, and the knowledge they acquired is retained for at least 3 months.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".