Providing Hospitalized Ulcerative Colitis Patients With Practice Guidelines Improves Patient-Reported Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and aims Variation in care has been demonstrated among hospitalized patients with ulcerative colitis. Guidelines aim to reduce variation; however, it is known that the uptake of guidelines by physicians is variable. Providing patients with guidelines is a strategy that has not been extensively studied in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a patient-directed educational intervention that included treatment guidelines among hospitalized ulcerative colitis patients. Methods We performed a quality improvement, cluster-randomized trial at seven tertiary IBD centres. Sites were randomized to implement an educational intervention or standard care for a 6-month period between January 2017 and January 2018. The educational intervention consisted of a patient-directed video that provided a summary of inpatient management guidelines for ulcerative colitis. Primary outcome measures included the length of stay and colectomy at discharge and 6 months. Patient-reported outcomes included trust in physician and patient satisfaction at discharge and at 6 months. Results Ninety-one patients were enrolled. No statistically significant differences in length of stay or colectomy were noted. Patients who received the intervention had higher trust in physician as measured by Trust in Physician Score at discharge (69.5 vs. 62.6, P = 0.028) and at 6 months (77.7 vs. 68, P = 0.008). Patient satisfaction as measured by the CACHE questionnaire in the intervention group was higher at discharge (72.8 vs. 67.1, P = 0.04); however, this difference was not sustained. Conclusion Empowering patients with guidelines through an educational intervention resulted in differences in trust in physician and patient satisfaction. Further studies are needed for evaluating a strategy of engaging IBD patients to take a more active role in their care. (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02569333).
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".