Patient-Centered Access to IBD Care: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Canada has the highest global age-adjusted incidence and prevalence rates of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Due to IBD patient volumes and limited resources, challenges to timely access to specialty care have emerged. To address this gap, the aim of this paper was to understand the experiences and perspectives of persons living with IBD with a focus on accessing health care. Methods: Using a qualitative descriptive approach, patients diagnosed with IBD (≥18 years of age) were purposively sampled from rural and urban gastroenterology clinics and communities across Canada. Co-facilitated by a researcher and patient research partner, 14 focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and coded for themes. Thematic analysis was used to ascertain the congruence or discordance of IBD specialty care access experiences. Results: A total of 63 individuals participated in the study. The majority of participants were female (41/63, 65%) and from urban/suburban regions (33/63, 52%), with a mean age of 48.39 (range 16-77 years). The analysis generated three main themes: (1) need for patient to be partner, (2) adapting IBD care access to individual context, and (3) patient-defined care priorities should guide access to IBD care. Conclusions: The complexity of specialty care access for IBD patients cannot be underestimated. It is vital to possess a robust understanding of healthcare system structures, processes, and the impact of these factors on accessing care. Using a patient-centered exploration of barriers and facilitators, IBD specialty care access in Canada can be better understood and improved on provincial and national levels.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".