3.8 Article

IBD2020 global forum: results of an international patient survey on quality of care

Journal

INTESTINAL RESEARCH
Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 537-545

Publisher

KOREAN ASSOC STUDY INTESTINAL DISEASES
DOI: 10.5217/ir.2018.00041

Keywords

Inflammatory bowel disease; Crohn disease; Colitis; ulcerative; Surveys and questionnaires; Quality of health care

Funding

  1. AbbVie
  2. Buhlmann
  3. Enterome
  4. Hive
  5. StratX
  6. KPMG
  7. Health Soultions
  8. Veryday

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: lBD2020 is a global forum for standards of care in inflammatory bowel disease WI The aim of the IBD2020 survey was to identify and describe variations in quality care of IBD. Methods: Patients with IBD from Finland, Italy, France, Canada, Germany, UK, Spain and Sweden were surveyed during 2013 to 2014, covering: disease characteristics; impact on life and work; organization and perceived quality of care. Results: Seven thousand five hundred and seven patients participated (median age, 39 years [range, 10-103 years]; 2,354 male [31.4%]), including 4,097 (54.6%) with Crohn's disease (CD) and 3,410 (45.4%) with ulcerative colitis (UC). Median time from symptom onset to diagnosis was 1 year for both CD (range, 0-47 years) and UC (range, 0-46 years), with no dear evidence of improvement in diagnostic delay over the preceding 24 years. Half of the patients (3,429; 50.0%) rated their care as excellent or very good; with similar results for CD and UC across countries. Five factors were significantly (P<0.01) associated with perceived good quality of care: quality of specialist communication; review consultation being long enough; failure to share information; no access to a dietician; speed of advice. Conclusions: The IBD2020 survey has highlighted areas related to quality of care of IBD from the patients' perspective, with scope for improvement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available