P354 Perceived Quality of Care is associated to quality of life, work productivity and gender but not disease phenotype: a prospective study in a high-volume IBD centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measuring the quality of care (QoC) in IBD has become increasingly important, yet complex assessment of quality indicators and perceived quality of care is rare. In this prospective study, we evaluated patients’ satisfaction on the QoC using the QUOTE-IBD questionnaire in the context of health related quality of life (HRQoL) and work productivity loss in a tertiary care IBD centre. Consecutive patients attending McGill University Health Centre (MUHC)-IBD Centre completed the QUOTE-IBD, SIBDQ, IBD-Control and WPAI questionnaires. The QUOTE-IBD comprises 23 items (8 domains) rated for importance (I) and performance (P), then a quality impact (QI) score was calculated (QI = 10-[I*P]) reflecting the overall satisfaction with each item. QI scores were calculated for the evaluation of GP, IBD-specialist and hospital care in each patient. Results of the QUOTE-IBD were compared with demographic data, disease phenotype, SIBDQ, IBD-Control and WPAI questionnaires. Patient clinical data were captured upon completion of the questionnaires. 525 patients (47.1% male, mean age: 41 years, CD: 71.2% [L3: 54.6%, B2/B3: 50.3%], UC: 28.8% [extensive colitis: 55.6%], biological therapy: 55.6%) completed the questionnaire. Total QI scores were similar for GP, IBD-specialists and hospital care (8.57, 8.70 and 8.33, respectively). Lower satisfaction was found regarding accessibility and information on nutrition. In multi-variate analyses, there was no overall difference between the QoC domains provided by the GP and IBD-specialists in either CD or UC (p = 0.231 and p = 0.061), with the exception of specialised information provided (p < 0.05). Female gender, poor HRQoL (SIBDQ ≤ 50) and poor disease control (IBD-Control < 13) were associated with significantly lower mean QI scores in multiple domains assessing both GP and IBD-specialists (p < 0.001 for all). Work productivity loss assessed by WPAI was significantly higher in patients with extensive UC, biological therapy and active disease (each p < 0.05). There was a clear inverse correlation between QI scores and work productivity loss (GP: p = 0.004; IBD-specialist: p < 0.001). Overall satisfaction with QoC was good and not different in GP and IBD-specialist provided care in this large referral IBD cohort. Female gender, poor HRQoL and work productivity loss was strongly correlated with patient satisfaction, highlighting that perceived QoC is subjective to disease control and quality of 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".