Patient Perspectives of Bowel Urgency and Bowel Urgency-Related Accidents in Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bowel urgency is bothersome in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD) and impacts their well-being but remains underappreciated in clinical trials and during patient-healthcare provider interactions. This study explored the experiences of bowel urgency and bowel urgency-related accidents to identify the concepts most relevant and important to patients. METHODS: Adults with a diagnosis of moderate-to-severe UC or CD for ≥6 months and experience of bowel urgency in the past 6 months were included. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted via telephonic/Web-enabled teleconference. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed in ATLAS.ti 9 using a systematic thematic analysis. RESULTS: In total, 30 participants with UC or CD (n = 15 each) (mean age 52 and 50 years, respectively) participated in the interviews. The majority of participants were receiving biologic and/or conventional therapy (80% and 87%, respectively). Most participants with UC (87%) and all with CD experienced bowel urgency-related accidents. The most frequently reported symptoms co-occurring with bowel urgency were abdominal pain, fatigue, and abdominal cramping. Abdominal pain and abdominal cramping were the most bothersome co-occurring symptoms of bowel urgency and bowel urgency-related accidents. In both groups, participants reported decreased frequency of bowel urgency and not wanting to experience bowel urgency-related accidents at all as a meaningful improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Participants with UC or CD expressed bowel urgency and bowel urgency-related accidents to be bothersome and impactful on their daily lives despite use of biologic and/or conventional therapy. These findings underscore the need for development of patient-reported outcome measures to assess bowel urgency in clinical settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".