Perceived Quality of Care is Associated with Disease Activity, Quality of Life, Work Productivity, and Gender, but not Disease Phenotype: A Prospective Study in a High-volume IBD Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Measuring quality of care [QoC] in inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD] has become increasingly important, yet complex assessment of QoC from the patients' perspective is rare. We evaluated perceived QoC using the Quality of Care Through the Patient's Eyes-IBD [QUOTE-IBD] questionnaire, and investigated associations between QoC, disease phenotype, work productivity, and health-related quality of life [HRQoL] in a high-volume IBD centre. METHODS: Consecutive patients attending McGill University Health Centre [MUHC]-IBD Centre completed the QUOTE-IBD, Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire [SIBDQ], IBD-Control, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment [WPAI] questionnaires. The QUOTE-IBD comprises 23 questions, each rated by a quality impact [QI] score. QI scores were calculated for the evaluation of IBD specialists, general practitioners [GPs], and hospital care. RESULTS: In all, 525 patients completed the questionnaire. Total QI scores for IBD specialists, GPs, and hospital care were 8.57, 8.70, and 8.33, respectively. The lowest QI scores were related to 'accessibility' for both IBD specialists and GPs. Female gender, current disease activity, poor HRQoL [SIBDQ score ≤50], and poor disease control [IBD-Control score <13] were associated with lower mean QI scores [p <0.001 for all]. Disease phenotype was not associated with QI scores in either Crohn's disease [CD] or ulcerative colitis [UC] [p = 0.69, p = 0.791, respectively]. An inverse correlation was found between total QI scores and work productivity loss [IBD specialist: p <0.001; GP: p = 0.004]. CONCLUSIONS: Overall patient satisfaction with QoC was good; however, improving patient accessibility to care is warranted. Disease phenotype was not associated with patient satisfaction, whereas female gender, current disease activity, HRQoL, and work productivity loss were associated with patients' quality assessment, underlining that perceived QoC could be partly subjective regarding 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".