"I Know This Is Bad for Me, But…"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) experience similar symptoms; however, individuals with IBD have alterations in their digestive tract and an increased probability of developing colorectal cancer, whereas individuals with IBS do not. Although not well documented within the literature, individuals with gastrointestinal (GI) disorders may engage in adverse behaviors regarding their intake of food, regardless of the fact that the "offending agents" have been identified. Further study into these negative behaviors is warranted for healthcare professionals to be provided with a better understanding of the behaviors that individuals with GI disorders knowingly engage in, despite the negative consequences. PURPOSE: The overall objective of this research was to explore the lived experience of women diagnosed with the GI disorders IBD and/or IBS, with an emphasis on the dietary patterns of the women before and after diagnosis. Specifically, this article examines the adverse behaviors that women engaged in with respect to the consumption of food, beverages, and medications. METHODS: Eight women diagnosed with IBD or IBS were recruited from a university campus in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Participants completed a background questionnaire, a 14-day food diary, and a semistructured interview consisting of 8 open-ended questions. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified: family and friend support, control, and adverse behaviors. The focus of this article, the theme of adverse behaviors, consisted of 2 major subthemes: dietary restrictions and issues with medication. All women engaged in adverse behaviors regarding their food intake and/or consumption of medications as related to food intake. CONCLUSIONS: Semistructured interviews with women diagnosed with IBD and IBS revealed that all women felt governed by their bowels to varying degrees. In addition, all women within this sample knowingly engaged in behaviors concerning food/beverages that had the potential to be detrimental to their conditions. A myriad of reasons were given for consuming foods/beverages. Implications for nursing practitioners are discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".