A175 BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE-RELATED DISTRESS AND QUALITY OF LIFE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease-associated psychological distress (IBD-PD) (inclusive of anxiety, depression, and high levels of stress) is prevalent amongst persons living with IBD. IBD-PD impairs quality of life (QoL) and worsens disease outcomes. Research relating to the efficacy of behavioral interventions for IBD-PD has been limited. Aims This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based interventions for the management of IBD-PD and QoL in persons living with IBD. Methods Pre-defined criteria were used to identify randomized controlled studies reporting on the efficacy of CBT-based interventions for IBD-PD and QoL in adults living with IBD. Electronic databases including CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycArticles, PsycInfo, Pubmed, and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 30, 2020. Studies published in English or French were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool by two independent reviewers (CH and MRF). Data was extracted and summarized qualitatively. A random-effects model was used to generate pooled estimates. Results Eight studies (922 participants) met criteria for inclusion in this review. The studies evaluated outcomes of quality of life and IBD-PD using the IBD Questionnaire (IBDQ), United Kingdom IBDQ, Short IBSQ, 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), Short Health Scale, Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), Hospital anxiety depression scale (HADS) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 Items (DASS-21). Of the 8 studies, 2 were low, 2 high, and 4 at intermediate risk of bias. Interventions, duration, and outcome assessments differed across studies and observed attrition rates were high. The pooled odds ratio for the short-term impact of CBT on IBDQ (n=3) was 0.30 (95% CI 0.17- 0.44) favoring CBT. Perceived stress (PSQ and PSS-10) were only reported in 3 studies as secondary outcomes. Overall, CBT had no observed benefit for perceived stress. Measurement of anxiety and depression was inconsistent across studies. The impact of CBT on anxiety and depression varied with studies revealing both neutral and positive results. Conclusions In patients IBD-PD, CBT-based interventions were observed to lead to short-term improvements in disease-related QoL. The impact of CBT on IBD-PD remains unclear due to limitations in study quality and heterogeneity in study design. Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of CBT-based interventions for IBD-PD and to define the role of behavioral interventions delivered within the context of collaborative, biopsychosocial models of care. Expert consensus on best practice for CBT-based interventions and IBD-PD evaluation are needed. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".