Doctor–patient interaction for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is defined by specific validated symptom criteria and encompasses several different underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that express a common set of symptoms. However, IBS is poorly understood by patients. We aimed to explore how a diagnosis of IBS affects the interaction between patients and their physicians. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search for studies in the English language addressing this issue was conducted using Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Database, Psychinfo, Cinahl, Embase, Web of Science and manual recursive search of reference lists. Investigators reviewed and abstracted data from articles fulfilling our inclusion criteria: primary care patients, all ages, gender and ethnic groups diagnosed with IBS by a general practitioner (GP). RESULTS: Retrieval of 121 articles generated only four that met inclusion criteria. Research methods of three studies relied solely on qualitative subjective, anecdotal patient narratives, a bias in favor of patients' negative opinion, absence of objective physician diagnostic criteria, pre-testing questions for two studies, follow-up and patient verification of accounts for accuracy. The fourth study included objective physician diagnostic criteria, quantitative measures, a pre-testing questionnaire, and both patient and doctor perspectives. There was a disparity between patient and GP perception regarding the nature, severity and consequences of IBS in primary care, leading patients to perceive this interaction as one of dissatisfaction. The fourth study revealed GP management of IBS mostly meets patient's expectations areas of concern centered on etiology, diagnostic criteria and dietary advice. Disparity seems to lie with the physician, who needs to provide more trust, knowledge, and sympathy, create rapport and be forthcoming with information, while keeping information simple and understandable. Patient dissatisfaction stems from the actual information provided and how this is communicated. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that some IBS patients in primary care experience dissatisfaction and negative attitudes in GP interactions. Future research should take into account personality attributes and cross-situational stability in addition to methodological implications of studies. GPs may be the first avenue for IBS patients to vent their frustration, and appropriate education programs for optimal management of patients with IBS are needed in primary care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".