BioAdvance Patient Support Program Survey: Positive Perception of Intravenous Infusions of Infliximab.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand the perception of intravenous infusions in patients receiving infliximab (Remicade) within the BioAdvance patient support program (PSP). DESIGN: Intravenous infusion of infliximab occurs at approximately 200 clinics across Canada and is managed via the BioAdvance PSP. Patients were invited to complete a 28-question survey on demographics, disease/treatment characteristics, health rating, lifestyle, employment, and perception of intravenous infusions and the BioAdvance program. METHODOLOGY: Analyses were exploratory and descriptive; collected data were self-reported ordinal (Likert scale, unfavorable-to-favorable, 1-10). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to assess statistical significance, and multinomial logistic regression identified predictors of a positive perception of intravenous infusions. RESULTS: 1,712 patients completed the survey. Most respondents had been treated with infliximab for >2 years (58%), had not been previously treated with a biologic (74%), and were receiving treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (76%). Sixty-two percent of patients were employed and most traveled for personal/work reasons (57%) and had a busy/active lifestyle (76%) while attending the BioAdvance clinics. Before treatment, participants rated their perceived favorability of intravenous infusions at 5/10 (median; interquartile range, 5-7); after multiple infusions, their rating increased significantly to 8 (7-9) (P<.001). Regression analysis identified four predictors of a positive infusion experience: French language, favorable ratings of health, accuracy of physician's description, and satisfaction with their BioAdvance coordinator. The vast majority of participants were likely to recommend the BioAdvance PSP. CONCLUSION: The survey results indicate that the majority of patients receiving infliximab have a positive infusion experience within the BioAdvance PSP.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".