A170 A NOVEL DECISION AID IMPROVES KNOWLEDGE AND QUALITY OF PREGNANCY-RELATED DECISION-MAKING IN IBD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with poor IBD-specific reproductive knowledge experience more voluntary childlessness. Poor knowledge is associated with fear of IBD medications in pregnancy; this must be addressed as active IBD at preconception (PC) correlates with worse intrapartum disease and poor fetal outcomes. The Pregnancy IBD Decision Aid (PIDA), developed by an international multidisciplinary team following International Patient Decision Aids Standards, is an interactive online tool that offers personalised decision support on fertility, pregnancy, and medications in IBD (Fig). Aims To assess PIDA’s impact on knowledge and quality of decision-making among PC and pregnant patients with IBD, and to evaluate its feasibility as a tool for patients and clinicians. Methods PC and pregnant women aged 18–45 with IBD, recruited in Canada and Australia, completed questionnaires pre and post PIDA to assess quality of decision-making (Decisional Conflict Scale, DCS; Self-Efficacy Score, SES) and IBD in pregnancy knowledge (Crohn’s and Colitis Pregnancy Knowledge Score, CCPKnow). DCS assesses if a decision is informed, aligned with personal values, and would be implemented. SES measures belief in one’s ability to make informed decisions. Patients and clinicians (gastroenterology, obstetrics, primary care) also completed feasibility surveys. Paired t-test assessed for differences pre and post PIDA. Results DCS and SES were completed by 74 patients (42 Crohn’s disease, 32 ulcerative colitis); 41 PC and 33 pregnant. DCS improved significantly post PIDA (effect size 0.44, p<0.0001); this was observed in PC patients regarding pregnancy planning with IBD, and in pregnant patients regarding peripartum IBD medication management. SES of PC but not pregnant patients improved significantly post PIDA (effect size 0.32 vs 0.24, p=0.0001 vs 0.0525). In both cohorts, CCPKnow improved significantly post PIDA (n=76, effect size 0.66, p<0.0001). Patients (n=73) assessed PIDA feasibility. Mean scores for length (3.05±0.44), readability (3.09±0.5), and content amount (2.91±0.81) were perceived as appropriate (1=limited, 5=excessive). Perceived usefulness of PIDA was high among all patients (4.09±0.93; 5=most useful). Clinicians (n=14) believed PIDA had appropriate length, readability, and content amount, and deemed PIDA useful to patients (4.6±0.8) and themselves (4.8±0.8) for clinical practice. Conclusions PIDA improved knowledge and quality of decision-making in PC and pregnant patients with IBD. Patients developed a strengthened belief in their ability to make informed, effective decisions, and both patients and clinicians found PIDA feasible. PIDA is an accessible tool that can empower women with IBD to make evidence-based decisions about pregnancy and may ultimately reduce voluntary childlessness. Funding Agencies Mount Sinai Hospital Resident Research Grant; Gastroenterological Society of Australia Rose Amarant Grant; Women and Children’s Health Research Institute (WCHRI); Clinical/Community Research Integration Support Program (CRISP); Merck Better Care, Healthy Communities Funding Program
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".