Cited by 28Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityInflammatory Bowel DiseaseMental Health and Patient Involvement

The information and support needs of patients living with inflammatory bowel disease: A qualitative study

Open access
Karadag, Paige, Morris, Beth, Woolfall, Kerry·2022·Chronic Illness

Abstract

Objectives: To explore patients’ experiences of living with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with a focus on their information and support needs. Methods: Qualitative interview study involving adults diagnosed with IBD recruited through social media. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and data were analysed thematically. Results: Interviews with 15 patients (9 females, 6 males) highlighted how misdiagnosis or hesitation to diagnose had caused frustration and anxiety. Once diagnosed, only a few participants received detailed information about IBD from their doctor. Negative experiences shared on social media caused initial anxiety, as individuals assumed that they may have a similar experience, yet online communities enabled insights into the experiences of others, helping patients adjust to living with IBD. Participants described both positive and negative impacts of living with IBD, including improved confidence and periods of anxiety. Discussion: Our findings highlight the importance of clear information and support from health professionals, as well as the benefits of online communities for ongoing support. At the point of diagnosis, patients would benefit from information about what IBD is, as well as how it may impact day to day life from doctors so that social media is not the only source of initial information about IBD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1742395320968617

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 40 · Cited by 28

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [38]Dahl S Eagle L. Empowering or misleading? Market Intell Plan 2016; 34: 1000– 1020.

Authors
Karadag, P., Morris, B., & Woolfall, K.
Affiliations
University of Liverpool (GB)
Corresponding author
Woolfall, Kerry
Venue
Chronic Illness
Published
2020-10-26
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
356-369
ISSN
  • 1742-3953 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-9206
OpenAlex
W3094348025
Cited by
28
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Chronic Illness (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Inflammatory Bowel Disease
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
inflammatory bowel disease, patient information needs, patient support needs, patient experience, misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis, physician-patient communication, social media, online patient communities, anxiety, living with chronic illness
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Male, Social Support, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Qualitative Research, Social Media

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