Health Care Services in IBD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to explore factors associated with health service utilization and preference for services, including alternatives to attending the emergency department (ED) when experiencing mild to moderate or severe symptoms. METHODS: A total of 1143 persons (46% response rate) aged 18 to 65 years in the population-based University of Manitoba IBD Research Registry participated in the survey. RESULTS: Although 61% had a gastroenterologist, when experiencing active symptoms, only 29% felt they could call their gastroenterologist for an urgent appointment, and 42% could call their gastroenterologist for telephone advice. Nine percent of the respondents visited the ED in the previous year. If having severe symptoms, 48% said that they would attend the ED. Visits to the ED were related to higher bowel symptom severity and high health anxiety. When experiencing severe symptoms, women, persons with Crohn's disease and those with high health anxiety, indicated that they would be more likely to use the ED. Considering services which could be available in the future respondents indicated that if acutely symptomatic they would be very likely or likely to use the following services: phone contact with inflammatory bowel disease nurse (77%), phone contact with a gastroenterologist (75%), and going to a walk-in gastroenterology clinic (71%). CONCLUSIONS: Persons with inflammatory bowel disease are receptive to options other than the ED when experiencing inflammatory bowel disease symptoms; however, attending the ED remains a prominent choice. Improved access to specialized care may improve timeliness of care and reduce ED attendance. Future research should include the impact of health anxiety on health care utilization.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 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".