Population-based controlled study of social support, self-perceived stress, activity and work issues, and access to health care in inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Manitoba IBD Cohort Study is a longitudinal, population-based study of multiple determinants of health outcomes in persons with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) diagnosed within 7 years at enrollment. In this cross-sectional substudy we compared IBD participants' levels of social support, self-perceived stress, disability, and access to healthcare with those of a matched community sample. METHODS: IBD participants (n = 388) were interviewed using the Canadian Community Health Surveys (CCHS) 1.1 and 1.2 to assess psychosocial variables. The national CCHS data were accessed to extract a community comparison group, matched on age, sex, and geographic residence. RESULTS: Compared to the community sample, IBD participants received more tangible, affective, or emotional support in the past year and were more likely to have experienced a positive social interaction. Those with IBD were as likely to be employed as those in the community sample, although they reported greater rates of reduced activity and days missed. Work was not identified as a significant source of stress, but physical health was more likely to be identified as a main stressor by those with active IBD compared to the non-IBD sample. Individuals with IBD were twice as likely to report unmet healthcare needs than the community sample; however, there was agreement across both groups regarding common barriers, including long waits and availability. CONCLUSIONS: While the disease may contribute to greater interference with work quality and daily activities, IBD patients have similar levels of stress and appear to have enhanced social supports relative to those in the community without IBD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".