A237 SHARED DECISION MAKING: DESIGN OF A PREGNANCY IN IBD DECISION AID (PIDA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Given a significant proportion of women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are of child-bearing age, the development of a pregnancy IBD decision aid would benefit patients and clinicians. Lack of IBD-specific reproductive knowledge has been associated with increased “voluntary childlessness” and may contribute to inappropriate medication changes during or after pregnancy. Decision aids support decision making in pregnancy in general, as well as in multiple other chronic diseases. However existing literature has not identified such a resource for women with IBD. Aims To develop a decision aid to improve decision making regarding preconception and pregnancy in IBD among women with IBD. Methods We followed the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). A steering committee of Canadian and Australian health care professionals with an interest in IBD management in pregnancy, in addition to patient representatives, was established. Themes chosen for discussion included inheritance, fertility, nutrition, medications, mode of delivery, breastfeeding, infant health. Initial patient and clinician focus groups were conducted and responses recorded with written/audio mediums. We developed an electronic PIDA draft that incorporates individualised information (type of IBD, pre-conception or pregnant, surgical history, medications) in personalized decision making. Further patient focus groups and interviews were conducted to obtain user opinion of the PIDA draft. Results In July 2017, patient and clinician focus groups were conducted at a Canadian site. Three patients (pre-conception) attended the focus group. Patient concerns - impact of disease and surgery on fertility and preterm delivery; impact of drug therapies on the fetus/ infant; impact of active disease on maternal and fetal/infant health. The clinician focus group included 3 IBD specialists, 2 IBD fellows, 2 IBD nurses, an obstetrician and a neonatal intensivist. Clinician concerns - absence of pre-conception counselling and lack of patient understanding about the impact of disease activity and IBD medication use in pregnancy. Additional patient feedback obtained through interviews (n=15) at two Canadian sites since March 2019 regarding the current electronic PIDA was positive, with comments about content, personalization, readability and unbiased presentation. Suggestions were made for inclusion of additional content such as impact of IBD on sexual function, laboratory changes during pregnancy, and timing of medications post-partum. Conclusions The pre and post PIDA design patient and clinician focus groups and interviews affirmed the role for PIDA. Main decisions considered necessary to address included ideal timing of conception pending disease activity, management of medications, and delivery methods. Ongoing user feedback will be obtained at Australian and Canadian sites during planned alpha testing. Funding Agencies WCHRI, Sinai Health System, UBC
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 | 0.024 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".