Models of outpatient care delivery in inflammatory bowel disease: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) becomes increasingly common worldwide, optimizing service delivery is critical to ensuring timely access to high-quality IBD care. We conducted a scoping review to understand the extent and type of evidence related to models of outpatient IBD care. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception to April 29, 2025 to identify English-language studies describing or evaluating models of care delivery for individuals with IBD in outpatient settings. Eligible peer-reviewed articles included publications of any type (primary studies, reviews, perspectives) focusing on any age group, timepoints in care (eg, transition from pediatric to adult care), and context (eg, remote delivery). Results: Of the 14,202 records searched, 243 met the inclusion criteria, including 89 studies evaluating models of care, 141 studies describing models of care without formal evaluation, and 13 consensus statements/guidelines. Models discussed included value-based multidisciplinary teams (with either biomedical or biopsychosocial approaches), care provided by nurses and other allied healthcare professionals (HCPs), remote monitoring and healthcare delivery, and rapid access clinics. Models increased patient satisfaction, enhanced collaboration between patients and HCPs, reduced health services utilization (eg, emergency department visits, hospitalizations), and improved patient outcomes (ie, disease activity, mental health, quality of life). Gastroenterologists, IBD nurses, and allied HCPs were consistently identified as key team members. Conclusions: Innovative outpatient models of IBD care have been proposed and evaluated. These models of care can guide modifications to IBD care globally to help address the rising demand of IBD on healthcare systems, increasing the efficiency of care.
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 | 0.019 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".