A Scoping Review of Doctor-patient Communication in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of doctor-patient communication in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) is crucial to ensure patients’ needs are addressed sensitively. The literature on the evaluation of doctor-patient communication in IBD is limited. This scoping review was conducted to understand the current methods of doctor-patient communication in IBD. Two authors completed the literature search using four electronic databases from inception to 2021 in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The reference lists of the retrieved studies were also examined. Relevant data from eligible studies were extracted by a single author. A second author verified the accuracy of the extracted data and analysed for discrepancies. Each paper was then assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for quality assessment. We found 572 articles and included seven studies involving 4369 participants. Evidence suggests that patients diagnosed with IBD require their information needs to be met directly by the doctor or through reliable internet sources. Involving patients in their care through shared decision-making is vital. The role of doctor-patient communication has evolved, and the aim is to actively involve the patient in the forefront of services. This review highlights the importance of keeping patient education at the core of care for patients living with IBD. Patients living with IBD want to be actively involved in the decisions surrounding their care. There is a need to cultivate a culture that includes patients living with IBD in service planning to drive reform in patient education and shared decision-making. Delivering information and education tailored to individuals' needs can enhance the quality of care and improve the health-related quality of life of patients living with IBD.
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 | 0.022 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".