Access to inflammatory bowel disease speciality care: the primary healthcare physician perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little literature related to access to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care that incorporates the perspective of key system stakeholders, such as primary healthcare providers (PHCP), despite their clear and integral role in facilitating access. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify barriers to referring patients to speciality IBD care as perceived by referring PHCP. In particular, we sought to understand PHCP satisfaction with the current IBD specialist referral system, as well as indicators of geographic variance to access. METHODS: A population-based survey was mailed out to currently practising PHCPs who have referred or who are currently referring patients to IBD speciality care in Nova Scotia (Canada). Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses were performed. Qualitative comments were themed using framework analysis to identify key barriers. RESULTS: The majority of PHCP (57%) were dissatisfied with the current referral process due to long patient wait times and perceived system inefficiency. Key areas of geographic variance in access included access to speciality care in the community and patient wait times. PHCPs suggested ideas to improve access including increased gastroenterologist supply, particularly in rural areas, and the creation of a provincial centralized referral and triage process. CONCLUSIONS: PHCPs play an important role in identifying and managing patients with IBD in partnership with gastroenterologists. This study identifies key PHCP perceived barriers that may prevent patients from accessing speciality IBD care. Understanding and addressing barriers to access from multiple stakeholder perspectives, including PHCPs, has the potential to support informed system redesign and overcome access inequities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".