A94 EXPLORING THE SOCIOECONOMIC BURDEN OF PEDIATRIC INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: A SURVEY OF FAMILIES AND PEDIATRIC PROVIDERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Rates of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have been increasing significantly over recent decades, contributing to the rising chronic disease burden across pediatrics. Currently, there is very limited literature exploring the financial burden on families of children with IBD. In fact, there is only one Canadian study in this area despite Canada having one of the highest rates of pediatric IBD in the world. Purpose The goal of this study is to better understand the socioeconomic burden of pediatric IBD at our institution and compare institutional practices across the country. Method The study took place at a large, tertiary care pediatric centre in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada between October 2022 and January 2023. Two separate electronic surveys were developed and distributed to all families of children with IBD at our institution (N= ~400) and pediatric IBD providers across the country (N= ~45) respectively. Surveys explored demographic information, financial impacts of IBD diagnosis and perceptions around pediatric IBD care and financial support. Result(s) Interim results (N=3) indicate dietary therapy costs, missed time off work and school and time off for IBD treatment as considerable burdens on families. Across the country, initial provider data (N=6) suggests significant variability in clinical practice, allied health support and financial support for families. There is overwhelming agreement among providers that the socioeconomic burdens on families is significant. Further data and regression analysis is ongoing. Conclusion(s) This is the first study in Canada to directly explore the socioeconomic burden on families of children with IBD. Results indicate good correlation between provider awareness and the increased financial burden on families but also considerable variation in practice across the country. Data suggest further research and advocacy is required to better support patients, however various quality improvement opportunities exist both locally and beyond. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".