The Majority of Patients Are Not Aware of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Medication Side Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess patients' knowledge of medication side effects. Methods: This is a questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study of 204 adult IBD patients attending the gastroenterology and biologic clinics in the University of Alberta Hospital. Multiple-choice questionnaires assessed patient knowledge of the side effects of commonly used IBD treatments (amino salicylates, corticosteroids, immunomodulators [imuran and methotrexate] and biologics). Results: Questionnaire response rate was 98% (200/204). Sixty-eight percent had Crohn's disease (136), 29% had ulcerative colitis, and 3% indeterminate colitis. The average age was 41.1±SD, range 18-79years. Half the patients were male (100/200). Table 1 depicts the knowledge of each medication's side effects, of those patients who had taken this medication. Table 1. Percent of Patients Prescribed Each Medication, and knowledge of side effects. Medication Side Effect % (N) Knowledge Respective Sulfasalazine Reversible male infertility 7.8% (4/51) Leukopenia 9.8% (5/51) Mesalamine Kidney problem 14.5% (23/159) Hepatitis 12.6% (20/159) Prednisone Sleep Disturbance 57.5% (107/186) Osteoporosis 47.3% (88/186) Weakness 26.9% (50/186) Wound healing 25.8% (48/186) Risk of infection 24.1% (45/186) Diabetes 10.6% (20/186) Hypertension 18.9% (35/186) Thiopurine Analogue (Imuran, 6-MP) Leukopenia 41.9% (67/160) Pancreatitis 22.5% (36/160) Hepatitis 35.6% (57/160) Risk of infection 42.5% (68/160) Lymphoma 9.3% (15/160) Methotrexate Folate deficiency 24.6% (15/61) Reversible male infertility 8.2% (5/61) Hepatitis 27.9% (17/61) Anti-TNF (Infliximab, Adalimumab) Risk of infection 57% (86/151) Lymphoma 24.5% (37/151) Tuberculosis 23.2% (35/151) Neuropathy 12.5% (19/151). Conclusion: Fewer patients were aware of the potential side effects of mesalamine and sulfasalazine than of prednisone and immunosuppressive medications. While 57% of patients on anti-TNF and 43% on thiopuries were aware of the increased risk of infection, only 24% patients on prednisone listed this as side effect. The majority of IBD patients are not aware of important side effects of medications they have been prescribed for treatment of their IBD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".