MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4245686066 · doi:10.1093/ibd/izy393.027

P023 PATIENT AND HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL VIEWS ON EMOTIONAL HEALTH AND INTIMACY IN ULCERATIVE COLITIS: RESULTS OF A GLOBAL ULCERATIVE COLITIS NARRATIVE SURVEY

2019· article· en· W4245686066 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stefan Schreiber, Remo Panaccione, Cem Kayhan, Antonio López–Sanromán, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, Alessandro Armuzzi, Marla C. Dubinsky, Gil Melmed, Michele Rubin, Susan J. Connor, Laurie Keefer, David T. Rubin

Bibliographic record

VenueInflammatory Bowel Diseases · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUlcerative colitisMedical prescriptionAnxietyFamily medicineInternal medicineHealth careDiseasePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ulcerative Colitis (UC) Narrative is a global survey of patients (pts) and gastroenterology physicians (GIs) aimed at identifying the impact of the disease and comparing and contrasting perceptions of UC burden and management approaches. Here, we present data from 2100 pts and 1254 GIs in Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the USA, with a focus on emotional health and intimacy in the care of pts with UC. Surveys were conducted online and by phone by The Harris Poll between August 2017 and February 2018. Eligible adult pts with UC (endoscopy confirmed) were those who had visited a GI in the previous 12 months and had ever received prescription medication for UC. Self-reported medication history was used as a proxy for disease severity, with pts with moderate to severe UC defined as pts who had ever taken immunosuppressants, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, other biologics, or corticosteroids for >4 of the past 12 months. Pts who had only ever taken 5-aminosalicylates or had a colectomy were excluded. Eligible GIs were those who saw ≥10 UC pts each month (≥5 in Japan), of whom ≥10% were taking a biologic and did not practice in a long-term care facility or hospice. Data are presented from all respondents who consented and completed the survey. Mean pt age was 40.8 (standard deviation [SD] 12.4) years and 82% of pts had moderate to severe UC. Although only 21% and 15% of pts had ever been diagnosed with anxiety or depression, respectively, 7% were seeing a psychiatrist, psychologist, or therapist as part of their UC management. The majority of pts (84%) found UC mentally exhausting, even pts whose UC was not moderate to severe (75%) or pts whose UC was controlled with few to no symptoms (82%). Discussing the emotional impact of UC during routine appointments was less of a priority for GIs compared with pts (7% of GIs considered it one of their top three priorities vs 13% of pts). Only 45% of pts felt comfortable discussing sex life and personal relationship concerns with their GI. Three in ten pts (30%) wished their GIs better understood the effect of UC on their mental health, whereas only 40% of pts (and 44% of GIs) considered managing the psychological impact of UC to be important in managing UC. Only half of pts (52%) felt comfortable discussing emotional concerns with their GI; however, only 23% of GIs regularly discussed the impact of UC on mental and emotional health with pts. Emotional and mental health issues are infrequently discussed at routine appointments. This suggests that mental health concerns are often not covered during appointments, despite most pts reporting UC as a mentally exhausting condition. The mental burden and exhaustion of UC should not be underestimated and GIs need to initiate these discussions during consultations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInflammatory Bowel Diseases→Same topicHealth, psychology, and well-being→French-language works237,207→