Coping with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) require disease and lifestyle information to make health-related decisions in their daily lives. Derived from a larger qualitative study of the lived experiences of people with IBD, we report on findings that explored how people with IBD engage with health-related information in their daily lives. METHODS: Participants were recruited primarily from the Manitoba IBD Cohort Study. We used purposive sampling to select people with a breadth of characteristics and experiences. Individual interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using inductive qualitative methods consistent with a phenomenological approach. RESULTS: Forty-five people with IBD participated; 51% were women. Findings highlighted the temporal and contextual influences on engagement with health-related information. Temporal influences were described as the changing need for health-related information over time. Participants identified 6 contextual factors influencing engagement with information to make health decisions: (1) emotional and attitudinal responses, (2) perceived benefits and risks, (3) trust in the source of the information, (4) knowledge and skills to access and use information, (5) availability of evidence to support decisions, and (6) social and economic environments. CONCLUSIONS: Findings illustrate the changing needs for health-related information over the course of IBD, and with evolving health and life circumstances. Practitioners can be responsive to information needs of people with IBD by having high-quality information available at the right time in a variety of formats and by supporting the incorporation of information in daily life.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".