Patient Perspectives of IBD Care and Services: An Integral Part of a Pan-Canadian Quality Improvement Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As beneficiaries of health service improvement initiatives, patients should have their perspectives of and gaps in care elicited to inform and guide the development of quality indicators to assess health care services. The purpose of this study was to identify patient perspectives amenable for conversion into measurable inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care quality indicators. METHODS: Crohn's and Colitis Canada's Promoting Access and Care through Centres of Excellence (PACE) program organized four patient focus groups in three Canadian provinces in 2016 to capture the perspective of patients on IBD care services. The RQDA package in R was used for transcript analysis, theme identification and for building a theme hierarchy based on the number of citations. The main themes were converted into patient-derived quality indicators. RESULTS: Several perceived unmet needs were elicited from participants that could be converted into measurable quality indicators. These unmet needs addressed the need for information, access to multidisciplinary services and specialized care, and access to psychological support. Patient unmet needs informed the selection of nine quality indicators that were included in the final list of PACE indicators to assess IBD care services across Canada. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a detailed description of patient perspectives on IBD care services that were an integral part of the development of measurable indicators of the quality of care in the context of a universal health care system.
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 | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".