Identifying Barriers to Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Treatment: A Survey of Patient and Physician Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antifibrotics are recommended for the treatment of individuals with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), but treatment use remains at ∼60%. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the views of individuals with IPF and pulmonologists on the diagnosis and management of IPF to understand treatment patterns. METHODS: Interviews and/or online surveys were completed by patients and pulmonologists from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Responses from physicians were analyzed by time between diagnosis and treatment initiation in the majority of patients with IPF (group A, > 4 months; group B, ≤4 months). Statistical comparisons between physicians were undertaken using z tests, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The physicians in group A saw fewer patients, were less comfortable discussing the IPF prognosis with patients, and had less belief in the benefits of antifibrotic treatments than the physicians in group B. These physicians' attitudes contrasted with those of the patients, who wanted more information about the IPF prognosis and pharmacological treatment options at diagnosis and were more concerned about preventing disease progression than avoiding medication side effects. Differences between countries were found regarding physicians' comfort in discussing the prognosis at diagnosis and access to care. CONCLUSIONS: Several barriers to antifibrotic treatment, principally reflecting the differing views and values of patients and physicians, were identified in this study, suggesting a need for better patient-physician communication about pharmacological therapy for IPF.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".