Exploring Patient Perspectives on a 12-Week Online, Stress Reduction Intervention in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Online stress reduction interventions may be useful adjuncts to standard medical therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). As part of the evaluation of a 12-week randomized control trial (RCT) of an online multicomponent stress reduction program, our aim for the current study was to use qualitative methods to more deeply explore the patient experience with the online programming. Methods: Upon completion of the 12-week RCT, all intervention participants were invited to participate in semistructured interviews. A qualitative descriptive approach was used. Interviews were analyzed through a theoretical thematic analysis process, whereby transcripts were coded, and codes then grouped into larger categories and themes. Results: A total of 56 interviews were analyzed with the emergence of 3 main themes: (1) IBD as a source of stress and uncertainty, (2) understanding the positive impacts of the stress reduction program, and (3) suggested strategies to enhance program desirability. IBD was described as causing uncertainty, significant disruptions to daily activities, and stress, which in turn worsened symptoms. The online program was associated with a perceived reduction in IBD symptom burden, an increased ability to manage daily and disease-associated stressors, and a more positive mindset. Variation in program content and fostering connections with others in the IBD community were identified as potential strategies to enhance future programming. Conclusions: This qualitative companion study highlights the power of the patient voice to deepen our understanding of the impact of IBD, and the potential benefit of an online stress reduction program including suggestions for iterative refinement.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".