One More Tool in the Tool Belt: A Qualitative Interview Study Investigating Patient and Clinician Opinions on the Integration of Psychometrics Into Routine Testing for Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs) encompass a common group of disorders characterised by chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. Psychological comorbidities are common in patients with DGBIs and are linked with poorer patient outcomes. Consequently, assessing and managing mental wellbeing may lead to improvements in symptoms and quality of life. Methods This study aimed to explore patients' and clinicians' opinions on integrating psychometrics into routine DGBI testing. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 patients with gastroduodenal DGBI and 19 clinicians who see and treat these patients. Interviews were analysed using inductive, reflexive thematic analysis. Results Three key clinician themes were developed: (1) psychology as part of holistic care, emphasising the importance of a multidisciplinary approach; (2) the value of psychometrics in clinical practice, highlighting their potential for screening and expanding management; and (3) navigating barriers to utilising psychometrics, addressing the need for standardisation to maintain the therapeutic relationship. Four key patient themes were developed: (1) the utility of psychometrics in clinical care, reflecting the perceived benefits; (2) openness to psychological management, indicating patients' willingness to explore psychological treatments; (3) concerns with psychological integration, addressing potential stigma and fear of labelling; and (4) the significance of clinician factors, emphasising the importance of clinician bedside manner, knowledge and collaboration. Conclusions These themes demonstrate that patients and clinicians see value in integrating psychometrics into routine DGBI testing. Despite potential barriers, psychometrics advance patient and clinician understanding and facilitate multidisciplinary management. Recommendations for navigating challenges were provided, and considering these, patients and clinicians supported the use of psychometrics as screening tools for patients with DGBIs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".