A97 PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT PERCEPTIONS REGARDING LOW DOSE ASPIRIN FOR THE PREVENTION OF PREECLAMPSIA IN PREGNANT PEOPLE WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Preeclampsia, characterized as high blood pressure and end organ dysfunction in pregnancy, is the second leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of developing severe preeclampsia. While there is emerging evidence that prevention with low dose aspirin (LDA) is safe in pregnant patients with IBD, patient and physician perceptions of LDA use remain unclear. Aims To examine Canadian patient and physician perceptions on LDA use for the prevention of preeclampsia in pregnant people with IBD. Methods This is a cross-sectional study with a survey for patients with IBD and a second survey for Canadian healthcare providers (HCPs). We collected demographic information and Likert scale answers on perceptions of LDA use including perceived side effects, utility, and optimal prescribing practices. Bivariate assessments were performed using Chi-square analysis and Fischer’s Exact Test. Results 125 patients and 46 HCPs responded. Patient median age was 35 and 60.8% were diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, 40% with Ulcerative Colitis, and 2.4% with indeterminate disease. 73.15% of patients did not consider Aspirin to pose significant risks such as increased gastrointestinal side effects, IBD flares, or fetal harm. 64.8% of patients agreed with being comfortable taking aspirin if prescribed for preeclampsia risk. There was no association between age, education level, income, or ethnicity and perceived comfort (all p > 0.05). Among HCPs, 43% were gastroenterologists, 30% obstetricians, and 27% other (General Practitioners, General Internists, Nurse Practitioner, Rheumatologist, Midwife, Gynecologist). Respondents (38.0%) most commonly recommended that obstetricians should prescribe LDA. For dosages, 51% of HCPs indicated 162 mg daily and 16.3% indicated 81 mg daily should be prescribed if indicated, while 18.4% reported not knowing. There was no association between years in practice, setting (academic versus community),or volume of IBD or pregnant patients seen in clinic (i.e., scope of practice), with HCP reported comfort levels in managing pregnancy related care in IBD (all p > 0.05). Scope of practice was also not associated with HCP perception that pregnant patients with IBD would develop pre-eclampsia or have worse outcomes than those without IBD. Conclusions Although IBD patient and HCP perceptions vary, LDA use is generally accepted for pre-eclampsia prophylaxis in pregnant patients with IBD. Future research should focus on targeted educational approaches to increase awareness and uptake of LDA therapy. Funding Agencies CAG
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".