The Real-World Global Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes for the Care of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been developed for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) without recommendations for clinical use. PROs differ from physician-reported disease activity indices; they assess patients' perceptions of their symptoms, functional status, mental health, and quality of life, among other areas. We sought to investigate the current global use and barriers to using PROs in clinical practice for IBD. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed. An electronic questionnaire was sent to an international group of providers who care for patients with IBD. Results: There were 194 respondents, including adult/pediatric gastroenterologists, advanced practice providers, and colorectal surgeons from 5 continents. The majority (80%) use PROs in clinical practice, 65% frequently found value in routine use, and 50% frequently found PROs influenced management. Thirty-one different PROs for IBD were reportedly used. Barriers included not being familiar with PROs, not knowing how to incorporate PRO results into clinical practice, lack of electronic medical record integration, and time constraints. Most (91%) agreed it would be beneficial to have an accepted set of consistently used PROs. The majority (60%) thought that there should be some cultural differences in PROs used globally but that PROs for IBD should be consistent around the world. Conclusions: PROs are used frequently in clinical practice with wide variation in which are used and how they influence management. Education about PROs and how to use and interpret an accepted set of PROs would decrease barriers for use and allow for global harmonization.
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 | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".