Stakeholder Perspectives on Access to IBD Care: Proceedings From a National IBD Access Summit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Canada has among the highest incidence and prevalence rates of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the world. While access to IBD specialty care can have a direct impact on health-related outcomes, the complexity of accessing IBD specialty care within Canada is not well understood and presents a barrier to implementation and evaluation of IBD specialty care. Aim The IBD Summit was held in partnership with Crohn’s & Colitis Canada to identify barriers and facilitators of IBD specialty care by exploring the perceptions and experiences of key stakeholders of IBD care across Canada. Results A total of 20 key stakeholders attended, including gastroenterologists, patients, researchers and policymakers. Perceptions and experiences of stakeholders were transcribed, coded and thematically analyzed. Three key categories relating to access to IBD care arose: (1) inadequate system structure, (2) process inefficiencies and (3) using outcomes to guide system change. The IBD Summit identified similar perceptions and experiences among stakeholders and across provinces, highlighting common barriers and facilitators that transcended provincial and health care system boundaries. Conclusions Key suggestions identify the clinical importance of comprehensive integrated multidisciplinary care approaches with enhanced communication between patient and health care providers, greater information sharing among team members, streamlined referral and triage processes, and improved incorporation of best practice into clinical care. Stakeholders across Canada and in other countries may benefit from the suggestions presented herein, as well as the successful use of collaborative and inclusive methods of gathering the perceptions and experiences of key stakeholders from diverse backgrounds.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".