Understanding symptom burden and attitudes to irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea: Results from patient and healthcare professional surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea (IBS-D) comprises multiple troublesome symptoms and negatively impacts patients' quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to assess IBS-D patient burden and patient and healthcare professional (HCP) attitudes towards IBS. METHODS: Patients and HCPs from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom completed internet-based surveys via market research panels. Attitudes to IBS-D-related statements were scored using seven-point Likert scales. RESULTS: The patient survey included 513 patients (70% female, mean age 40.9 years). Faecal urgency was reported as the most troublesome symptom (27%) and fatigue occurred on the most days per month (mean: 18); 61% of patients used ≥3 types of treatment daily or intermittently; 19% used antidepressants daily. Thirty-three per cent thought HCPs should listen and provide more support and 46% reported willingness to 'try anything' to help manage their IBS-D. The HCP survey included 366 primary care physicians and 313 gastroenterologists: A total of 70% and 65%, respectively, agreed it was important that IBS-D patients feel listened to and supported; 73% agreed their main aim was to improve quality of life; ∼30% expressed frustration at managing IBS-D. CONCLUSION: IBS-D imposes a substantial burden on patients and HCPs. These findings point towards a need for improved patient-HCP communication.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".