Investigating Patient and Clinician Opinions on the Integration of Psychometrics Into Testing for Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction, 2024, Law et al

Full title: One More Tool in the Tool Belt: A Qualitative Interview Study Investigating Patient and Clinician Opinions on the Integration of Psychometrics Into Routine Testing for Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction

Abstract

Introduction
Disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs) encompass a common group of disorders characterised by chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. Psychological comorbidities are common in patients with DGBIs and are linked with poorer patient outcomes. Consequently, assessing and managing mental wellbeing may lead to improvements in symptoms and quality of life.

Methods
This study aimed to explore patients' and clinicians' opinions on integrating psychometrics into routine DGBI testing. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 patients with gastroduodenal DGBI and 19 clinicians who see and treat these patients. Interviews were analysed using inductive, reflexive thematic analysis.

Results
Three key clinician themes were developed: (1) psychology as part of holistic care, emphasising the importance of a multidisciplinary approach; (2) the value of psychometrics in clinical practice, highlighting their potential for screening and expanding management; and (3) navigating barriers to utilising psychometrics, addressing the need for standardisation to maintain the therapeutic relationship. Four key patient themes were developed: (1) the utility of psychometrics in clinical care, reflecting the perceived benefits; (2) openness to psychological management, indicating patients' willingness to explore psychological treatments; (3) concerns with psychological integration, addressing potential stigma and fear of labelling; and (4) the significance of clinician factors, emphasising the importance of clinician bedside manner, knowledge and collaboration.

Conclusions
These themes demonstrate that patients and clinicians see value in integrating psychometrics into routine DGBI testing. Despite potential barriers, psychometrics advance patient and clinician understanding and facilitate multidisciplinary management. Recommendations for navigating challenges were provided, and considering these, patients and clinicians supported the use of psychometrics as screening tools for patients with DGBIs.

Open access, https://www.cureus.com/articles/282...ing-for-disorders-of-gut-brain-interaction#!/

 

Again, if you'd run a corporate/marketing focus group like this you'd just be laughed out of your job and dismissed with your whole work thrown in the trash. Unless you happen to work for a company that actually wants to run a pretend focus group where all the participants quote straight from the corporate brochure and, totally spontaneous, break out in the corporate anthem and totally rad memes from social media. Which happens, but those companies usually either go out of business soon enough, or are in an industry that isn't subject to supply and demand dynamics. You know, like health care. Too big to fail, government monopoly, no competition or alternative.

This is pretty close to how Soviets managed their economies, made decisions about what products and services ordinary citizens needed. Everything sprung from the top, with some token sycophancy in a managed process where every single word of whatever useless document they produce was decided in advance and ultimately didn't matter.

I guess probably how Musk is running twitter as well. You just create an environment in which you're always right and no one ever says no, and it starts to feel like you're always right. This is the outcome after several generations of inbred ideas.

If anything the last few disastrous decades of evidence-based medicine has shown, it's that psychometric questionnaires are exactly as useful as horoscopes and Meyers-Briggs or Dungeons & dragons character profiles. Might as well be using 'lie detectors' here.

But for several authors it's been an easy no-effort process that pads their academic CV. They got a paper published. A useless paper, but it's all they seem focused on.

Potemkin health care.

 

Yeah the idea that there isn’t coercion in getting results from these

because of course people who suffer sometimes extreme effects for a long time wouldn’t rather just have their life made less stressful than undergo some not pleasant procedures

and then get told ‘they must be doing it wrong’ on their ‘trying to think right’ because of course the ‘thinking right’ actual course is BS that doesn’t work except on making people write the right answer on paper either due to the promise if a job ‘if they recover ’ vs bring outcasts or terrifying threats I’m pretty sure anyone normal could actually understand if they were threatened with it themselves forevermore but choose to pretend isn’t one when it’s someone else

it’s time some serious regulation was introduced to all these fields

the saddest thing is when you think how short we are if peopl doing proper medicine and helping people. I understand the overwork, and how it gets worse the more people go off to cushy numbers but is that really justification for this industry taking up what % now of actual healthcare professionals and the budget instead of someone cutting off these non science angles?