Cited by 17Inflammatory Bowel DiseaseAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcarePatient Satisfaction in Healthcare

People Living with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Want Multidisciplinary Healthcare: A Qualitative Content Analysis

Open access
Feeney, Meg, Chur-Hansen, Anna, Mikocka-Walus, Antonina·2022·Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings

Abstract

This study reports on the preferences of people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) for their healthcare. Overall, 477 people with IBD responded to an open-ended survey question within a larger study. We qualitatively content-analysed these responses with open coding using NVivo. Respondents expressed a desire for (1) better communication, (2) multidisciplinary care, (3) better treatment, services and specialist care, (4) whole person care, (5) health promotion, (6) proactive healthcare, (7) fewer administrative issues and (8) improved hospital experience. Patients with IBD want patient-centred, multidisciplinary care. Healthcare professionals should facilitate patients' access to proactive care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10880-021-09801-4

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Perspectives shared by participants that an IBD-specific psychological intervention would be particularly valuable close to time of diagnosis was congruent with past research and may be useful in informing best practice models of care.

    “Perspectives shared by participants in the current study that an IBD-specific psychological intervention would be particularly valuable close to time of diagnosis was congruent with past research and may be useful in informing best practice models of care (Dober et al., 2021; Fawson et al., 2022; Feeney et al., 2022).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feeney, M., Chur-Hansen, A., & Mikocka-Walus, A.
Affiliations
The University of Adelaide (AU)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
Published
2021-06-29
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
570-577
ISSN
  • 1068-9583 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3572
OpenAlex
W3176208134
Cited by
17
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Inflammatory Bowel Disease
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Adolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Keywords
inflammatory bowel disease, patient preferences, multidisciplinary care, patient-centered care, healthcare communication, holistic care, health promotion, proactive healthcare, hospital experience, administrative problems, specialist care
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Patient-Centered Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review