A310 CANADIAN GASTROENTEROLOGY RESIDENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS TREATING PATIENTS WITH DISORDERS OF GUT BRAIN INTERACTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Disorders of gut brain interaction (DGBI) are common in the Canadian population. Studies show DGBI represent 30% of new referrals to gastroenterology (GI) clinics. Despite this, evidence suggests that gastroenterologists experience challenges in providing care for these patients, with a recent study from the United States indicating that this discomfort may begin early in residency training. Aims Our aim was to determine Canadian GI resident attitudes towards treating patients with DGBI, with a focus on determining underlying causes and solutions for potential negative attitudes. Methods Gastroenterology residents participating in accredited adult GI training programs in Canada were invited to participate in an online 30-item survey. This was based on similar studies in the adjacent field of chronic pain and administered using RedCap. Recruitment occurred through email invites distributed to residency program directors and QR code links presented at national GI resident meetings over one year. Results In total, 42 residents participated in the survey. Most residents reported frequent exposure to DGBI. Although most residents felt confident at diagnosing DGBI, only few felt confident in managing them. The majority reported less enjoyment and personal reward at managing DGBI than other gastrointestinal diseases, finding them frustrating to treat and expressing concern regarding the uncertainty of the diagnosis and low likelihood of successful management. Residents believed that challenges in the treatment stemmed from the following: inadequate training, uncertainty regarding the severity of symptoms that were reported, co-existing psychiatric issues, a lack of clarity on therapy and inadequate time. Residents reported that senior residents and staff both expressed negative opinions about caring for those with DGBI, and felt that displeasure for managing patients with DGBI was pervasive in the GI community. Importantly, the majority of trainees believed it was important to formally learn about the physiological underpinnings of DGBI as well as their diagnosis and management. Furthermore, understanding the impact of DGBI on a patient’s quality of life was thought to be important. Conclusions This national survey demonstrates that Canadian GI trainees are less confident and less interested in providing care for those with DGBI due to a variety of factors including inadequate training and a potential hidden curriculum. Residents believe in the importance of education in this field. The results of this study will be used to develop educational experiences to ultimately improve the care of those with DGBI. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".