Validating a Measure of Patient Self-efficacy in Disease Self-management Using a Population-based IBD Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-efficacy describes a person's confidence in their ability to manage demands, and is predictive of health outcomes in chronic disease such as hospitalization and health status. However, meaningful measurement must be domain (e.g., disease) specific. This study aims to provide validation of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Self-Efficacy scale (IBD-SE), using a population-based IBD sample. METHODS: Manitoba IBD Cohort Study participants completed a survey and clinical interview at a mean of 12 years postdiagnosis (n = 121 Crohn's disease; n = 108 ulcerative colitis), which included validated measures of psychological functioning, disability, disease-specific quality of life, perceived health, and current and recent disease activity, in addition to the IBD-SE. RESULTS: The IBD-SE had high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.97), and a 4-factor structure was confirmed. Construct validity was demonstrated as follows: the IBD-SE was strongly correlated with mastery (r = 0.53), highly correlated in the expected directions with measures of psychological well-being (r = 0.70), stress (r = -0.78), distress (r = -0.71), disability (r = -0.48), disease-specific quality of life (r = 0.68), and overall perceived health (r = 0.52) (all P < 0.001). Those with currently inactive disease had higher self-efficacy than the active disease group (Crohn's disease: mean = 232 versus 195, P < 0.001; ulcerative colitis: mean = 233 versus 202, P < 0.01), with similar findings for recent symptomatic disease activity. CONCLUSIONS: The IBD-SE is a reliable, valid, and sensitive measure as demonstrated in this population-based sample, supporting its utility in IBD. Because self-efficacy is a modifiable psychological characteristic that can contribute to positive health outcomes, the IBD-SE may prove to be a valuable instrument for research and in targeted intervention with IBD patients.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".