Health Care Perspectives of Adult Patients with Lower Educational Attainment in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with lower educational attainment are underrepresented in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research. To increase our understanding of the health care perspectives of patients with less than a university degree, semi-structured interviews were conducted among 23 outpatients at the McGill University Health Centre IBD Centre (Montreal, Canada). Thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. Perspectives focused on communication with health care professionals, access to care, symptoms and treatment, and outside support. Access to an IBD specialist was the most important aspect of care. Good care, kind and receptive staff, and a lengthy delay to diagnosis were frequently reported experiences. IBD specialists, nurses, and family and friends were most helpful in managing disease. Physical and emotional symptoms, reduced social engagement, and medications were difficult aspects of living with IBD. An ideal IBD clinic would provide access to traditional and non-traditional services and assist with obtaining support to help patients engage in social activities, increase affordability of care, and maintain employment. Study findings may be helpful in designing equitable models of health care delivery.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".