THE MEDICAL CARE PROCESS OF INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES IN CANADA: PERCEPTIONS OF PATIENTS AND PROVIDERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to explore how the perceptions of patients and physicians align throughout the medical care process of IBD, as proposed by a previous study. Various aspects of the experience of patients and physicians with the medical care process of IBD at different points in time were explored through a web-based survey administered to 210 IBD patients (members of Crohn's and Colitis Canada (CCC)), and 6 focus groups held with 28 physicians across Canada. Statistical tests (Paired Wilcoxon-Pratt test; logistic regressions) and inter-coder deductive thematic analyses were performed respective to each data collection methods. The results revealed that: 1) reassured patients were more satisfied with the care they received and physicians tried to fulfill their patients’ emotional and cognitive needs; 2) the patients’ stress level decreased and satisfaction increased as the medical process progressed, and physicians acknowledged that stress may have led patients to be more compliant with their recommendations; and 3) patient confidence is associated with greater involvement in care and an increase in satisfaction with the improvement of their condition, a component also recognized by physicians as fundamental to IBD management and monitoring. Overall, this study highlights an interconnection between the diverse experiences of patients and physicians in the medical care process, which led to the development of a trusting relationship between patients and physicians.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".