Patient Perspectives and Expectations in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this systematic review, our objective was to assess inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient preferences and perspectives relating to their disease diagnosis, treatment, knowledge needs and telemedicine. METHODS: This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Four databases and conference proceedings were searched between January 1, 1980, and May 1, 2020. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Standards for reporting qualitative research checklist. RESULTS: Our search identified 240 citations and 52 studies met the inclusion criteria. The major expectations of the patients are symptomatic and pain control, quality of life and normal endoscopy. Patients' main concerns are access to information and healthcare, and shared decision making. At the time of diagnosis, patients expressed a greater need for knowledge about their IBD, preferentially by their treating gastroenterologist. The main treatment expectations in active disease are efficacy, safety and convenience. Patients are willing to accept relatively high risks of complications from medical therapy to avoid a permanent ostomy and to achieve durable remission. Patients are more interested in disease monitoring, research and development during the time of remission. Telemedicine and self-management with supervised e-health tools are feasible and acceptable amongst patients with IBD. CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrates that patients with IBD expect more information about their disease process, shared decision making and symptom control. Further research is needed to help align patient and physician expectations in order to improve the quality of care provided to patients with IBD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".