P757 Focusing on the future: Reducing barriers and improving access to inflammatory bowel disease specialty care across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) is a chronic immune-mediated disease which affects nearly two million North Americans, with Canada demonstrating the highest age-adjusted incidence and prevalence rates globally. Resulting from compounding prevalence and limited resources, timely access to IBD care continues to be a widespread issue for patients and healthcare providers. Despite this pervasive issue, there has been no published research to date elucidating the patient perspective using qualitative approaches to compare and contrast the patient experience across Canada. The aim of the study was to elicit a qualitative stream of data to better understand phenomena related to access to IBD care from a patient-centered perspective. Methods Patients diagnosed with IBD (≥18 years of age) were recruited from gastroenterology clinics and communities through IBD specialists and Crohn’s & Colitis Canada. To ensure geographic diversity and representation, patients were recruited from both urban and rural regions. In order to acquire multiple access perspectives, patients were invited to bring a family member involved in their care to the focus groups. Co-facilitated by a researcher and patient-research partner, all focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded for themes. Themes were distilled through qualitative thematic analysis using Atlas.ti software to ascertain congruence or discordance of patient experiences in relation to IBD care access. Results Sixty-three participants were recruited in 14 focus groups across seven provinces. The majority of participants were female (41/63, 65%) and from urban/suburban regions (34/63, 54%). The mean age of participants was 48 years (SD=16 years, range=16 to 77 years). Thematic analyses identified four main barrier themes, each with multiple sub-themes: (1) structure/system issues (i.e. system stagnation), (2) processes (i.e. information management), (3) experiences (i.e. psychosocial support), and (4) patient as partner (i.e. autonomy, power dynamics). In response, four solution themes were proposed: (1) integration of holistic care into the clinical practice, (2) readily accessible psychosocial and nutritional support, (3) increased patient advocacy, and (4) continuity and liaison through provision of a healthcare navigator resource. Conclusion The complexity of IBD specialty care access cannot be underestimated. It is vital to possess a robust understanding of healthcare system structures, processes, and the significant impact these factors have on patients and the care received. Through the use of patient-centered exploration of barriers and facilitators, access to IBD specialty care in can be better understood and improved on both a national and international scale.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".