“It’s a helluva journey”: A qualitative study of patient and clinician experiences of nausea and vomiting syndromes and functional dyspepsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Chronic gastroduodenal disorders including chronic nausea and vomiting syndrome, gastroparesis, and functional dyspepsia, are challenging to diagnose and manage. The diagnostic and treatment pathways for these disorders are complex, costly and overlap substantially; however, experiences of this pathway have not been thoroughly investigated. This study therefore aimed to explore clinician and patient perspectives on the current clinical pathway. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted between June 2020 and June 2022 with 11 patients with chronic nausea and vomiting syndrome alone or with functional dyspepsia (based on Rome IV criteria) and nine gastroenterologists who treat these conditions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed using an iterative, inductive approach. Results Five key patient themes were identified: (1) the impacts of their chronic gastroduodenal symptoms, (2) the complexity of the clinical journey, (3) their interactions with healthcare providers, (4) the need for advocacy, and (5) their experience of treatments. Five key clinician themes were also identified: (1) these conditions were seen as clinically complex, (2) there is an uncertain and variable clinical pathway, (3) the nuance of investigations, (4) these conditions were difficult to therapeutically manage, and (5) there are barriers to developing a therapeutic relationship. Conclusions Findings indicate that both patients and clinicians are dissatisfied with the current clinical care pathways for nausea and vomiting syndromes and functional dyspepsia. Recommendations included the development of more clinically relevant and discriminant tests, standardization of the diagnostic journey, and the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and treatment.
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 | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".