Information experiences, needs, and preferences of colonoscopy patients: A pre-colonoscopy survey.
ABSTRACT: Better pre-colonoscopy education may lead to improved bowel preparation, decreased anxiety, and a willingness to go direct-to-colonoscopy. We assessed information experiences, needs, and preferences of patients undergoing colonoscopy.A self-administered survey was distributed between 08/2015 and 06/2016 to patients in Winnipeg, Canada when they attended an outpatient colonoscopy. The amount, type, helpfulness, and satisfaction with information provided were analyzed. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to assess predictors of satisfaction with various aspects of the information received, as well as overall satisfaction with the provided information.Although the majority of the 1580 respondents were satisfied with the information they received, only 68% of respondents coming for a repeat colonoscopy and 59% of those coming for first colonoscopy perceived receiving just the right amount of information from their endoscopy doctor. One quarter or less of the respondents indicated they received just the right amount of information from any source other than their colonoscopy doctor. 38% coming for a first colonoscopy and 44% coming for a repeat colonoscopy indicated they received no information from their family physician. Those coming for their first colonoscopy had a lower average score (9.7 vs 11.1; P < .001) for amount of information received (scale 0-15), were less satisfied with the information they received (P = .005) and found the information to be less clear (P = .004).Many patients going for colonoscopy in a large urban practice are inadequately informed about the various aspects of the procedure and it is worse for those going for first rather than repeat colonoscopy.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Colonoscopy is a valuable screening tool for colorectal cancer. However, patients experience anxiety when faced with attending a first colonoscopy, and negative attitudes may contribute to non-attendance. Few studies in Europe have explored these attitudes, despite increasing colorectal cancer incidence. STUDY AIM:We conducted an online survey of the public in five European Union countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK), with the aim of understanding public knowledge of, perceptions of, and attitudes towards, colonoscopy and bowel preparation, amongst colonoscopy-naïve respondents. Attitudes towards colonoscopy were also gathered from colonoscopy-experienced patients. METHODS:Survey answers were gathered from 2,500 colonoscopy-naïve respondents and 500 colonoscopy-experienced patients, divided equally between countries. RESULTS:Across Europe, 72% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents showed receptiveness to colonoscopy if advised by their doctor to receive one, but only 45% understood its use to prevent colorectal cancer. Forty-three percent of colonoscopy-experienced respondents would still be embarrassed about having another colonoscopy, although 59% said that the experience had been better than expected. Colonoscopy-experienced respondents had greater aversion to bowel preparation than colonoscopy-naïve respondents (47% vs 26%), and 67% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents thought that only 1 litre of bowel preparation or less is required. Italians and the Spanish wanted more information than on average in Europe, while Germans had more realistic expectations of bowel preparation. DISCUSSION:There are perceptual gaps amongst the public around the purpose of colonoscopies, the subjective experience of the colonoscopy procedure, and the quantity of bowel preparation needed. These concerns could be mitigated by better education and using lower-volume bowel preparation techniques. CONCLUSION:Europeans would have a colonoscopy, but its preventive medical purpose is poorly understood and there are misconceptions around the process. Further education about the procedure, its benefits and bowel preparation is vital to improve understanding and compliance.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous research indicates that patients and their families have many questions about colonoscopy that are not fully answered by existing resources. We developed revised forms on colonoscopy bowel preparation and on the procedure itself. OBJECTIVE:As the goal of the revised materials is to have improved information relative to currently available information, we were interested in how revised information compared with what is currently available in terms of information quality and patient preference. METHODS:Participants were asked to review one at a time the Revised and Current versions of Colonoscopy bowel preparation instructions (study 1) and About Colonoscopy (study 2). The order of administration of the Revised and Current versions was randomly counterbalanced to assess order effects. Respondents rated each form along the following dimensions: amount, clarity, trustworthiness, readability and understandability, how new or familiar the information was, and reassurance. Participants were asked which form they preferred and 4 questions about why they preferred it. Open-ended questions asked participants to describe likes and dislikes of the forms and suggestions for improvement. RESULTS:The study 1 and study 2 samples were similar. Overall, in study 1, 62.4% preferred the Revised form, 28.1% preferred the Current form, and 6.7% were not sure. Overall, in study 2, 50.5% preferred the Revised form, 31.1% preferred the Current form, and 18.4% were not sure. Almost 75% of those in study 1 who received the Revised form first, preferred it, compared with less than half of those who received it first in study 2. In study 1, 75% of those without previous colonoscopy experience preferred the Revised form, compared with more than half of those who had previously undergone a colonoscopy. The study 1 logistic regression analysis demonstrated that participants were more likely to prefer the Revised form if they had viewed it first and had no previous experience with colonoscopy. In study 2, none of the variables assessed were associated with a preference for the Revised form. In comparing the 2 forms head-to-head, participants who preferred the Revised form in study 1 rated it as clearer compared with those who preferred the Current form. Finally, many participants who preferred the Revised form indicated in the open-ended questions that they liked it because it had more information than the Current form and that it had good visual information. CONCLUSIONS:This study is one of the first to evaluate 2 different patient education resources in a head-to-head comparison using the same participants in a within-subjects design. This approach was useful in comparing revised educational information with current resources. Moving forward, this knowledge translation approach of a head-to-head comparison of 2 different information sources could be taken to develop and refine information sources on other health issues.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Although several patient education materials on colonoscopy preparation exist, few studies have evaluated or compared them; hence, there is no professional consensus on recommended content or media to use. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to address this need by developing and evaluating a new video on colonoscopy preparation. METHODS:We developed a new video explaining split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Of similar content videos on the internet (n=20), the most favorably reviewed video among patient and physician advisers was used as the comparator for the study. A total of 232 individuals attending gastroenterology or urology clinics reviewed the new and comparator videos. The order of administration of the new and comparator videos was randomly counterbalanced to assess the impact of presentation order. Respondents rated each video on the following dimensions: information amount, clarity, trustworthiness, understandability, new or familiar information, reassurance, information learned, understanding from the patient's point of view, appeal, and the likelihood of recommending the video to others. RESULTS:Overall, 71.6% (166/232) of the participants preferred the new video, 25.0% (58/232) preferred the comparator video, and 3.4% (8/232) were not sure. Furthermore, 64.0% (71/111) of those who viewed the new video first preferred it, whereas 77.7% (94/121) of the participants who viewed the new video second preferred it. Multivariable logistic regression analysis also demonstrated that participants were more likely to prefer the new video if they had viewed it second. Participants who preferred the new video rated it as clearer and more trustworthy than those who preferred the comparator video. CONCLUSIONS:This study developed and assessed the strengths of a newly developed colonoscopy educational video.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Participation rates in colorectal cancer screening (CRC) are low. Relatively little is known about screening uptake across varying levels of risk and across population groups. The purpose of the current study was to identify factors associated with (i) ever receiving colorectal cancer (CRC) testing; (ii) risk-appropriate CRC screening in accordance with guidelines; and (iii) recent colonoscopy screening. METHODS: 1592 at-risk persons (aged 56-88 years) were randomly selected from the Hunter Community Study (HCS), Australia. Participants self-reported family history of CRC was used to quantify risk in accordance with national screening guidelines. RESULTS: 1117 participants returned a questionnaire; 760 respondents were eligible for screening and analysis. Ever receiving CRC testing was significantly more likely for persons: aged 65-74 years; who had discussed with a doctor their family history of CRC or had ever received screening advice. For respondents "at or slightly above average risk", guideline-appropriate screening was significantly more likely for persons: aged 65-74 years; with higher household income; and who had ever received screening advice. For respondents at "moderately or potentially high risk", guideline-appropriate screening was significantly more likely for persons: with private health insurance and who had discussed their family history of CRC with a doctor. Colonoscopy screening was significantly more likely for persons: who had ever smoked; discussed their family history of CRC with a doctor; or had ever received screening advice. CONCLUSIONS: The level of risk-appropriate screening varied across populations groups. Interventions that target population groups less likely to engage in CRC screening are pivotal for decreasing screening inequalities.
Project description:Colonoscopy services working in colorectal cancer screening programs must perform periodic controls to improve the quality based on patients' experiences. However, there are no validated instruments in this setting that include the two core dimensions for optimal care: satisfaction and safety. The aim of this study was to design and validate a specific questionnaire for patients undergoing screening colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test, the Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on patients' experience (CSSQP). The design included a review of available evidence and used focus groups to identify the relevant dimensions to produce the instrument (content validity). Face validity was analyzed involving 15 patients. Reliability and construct and empirical validity were calculated. Validation involved patients from the colorectal cancer screening program at two referral hospitals in Spain. The CSSQP version 1 consisted of 15 items. The principal components analysis of the satisfaction items isolated three factors with saturation of elements above 0.52 and with high internal consistency and split-half readability: Information, Care, and Service and Facilities features. The analysis of the safety items isolated two factors with element saturations above 0.58: Information Gaps and Safety Incidents. The CSSQP is a new valid and reliable tool for measuring patient' experiences, including satisfaction and safety perception, after a colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Data suggest the overuse of repeat colonoscopies, especially in patients at low risk for colorectal cancer. Our objective was to evaluate the time to repeat colonoscopies in low-risk patients aged 50-79 years old and the associated patient- and endoscopist-related factors. METHODS: All patients aged 50-79 years of age who underwent a complete outpatient colonoscopy with a negative result between 2000 and 2007 were identified from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan database. A colonoscopy performed within 5.5 years of follow-up after the index colonoscopy was considered an early repeat colonoscopy. Patient, endoscopist and endoscopy setting characteristics were recorded and their association with an early repeat colonoscopy was determined using an extended Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 546 467 patients: 55.4% of the patients were female with a mean age of 61.1 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 61.1-61.2). The cumulative percentage of early repeat colonoscopy after 5.5 years was 33.7%. The rate decreased significantly between 2000 and 2007 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35, 95% CI 0.34-0.36). General surgeons were associated with a higher risk of early repeat colonoscopy than gastroenterologists (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.28). Endoscopists practising in a nonhospital setting were more likely to perform an early repeat colonoscopy (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.22-1.30) than endoscopists at a hospital. INTERPRETATION: This study showed that there was overuse of early repeat colonoscopy in more than 30% of patients who were at low risk for colorectal cancer. The risk decreased significantly between 2000 and 2007 but was still greater than 20% in 2007. Our findings can be used to develop targeted educational interventions among subgroups of endoscopists with a higher rate of early repeat colonoscopy.
Project description:AIM:To evaluate the effectiveness of simethicone in enhancing visibility and efficacy during colonoscopy. METHODS:A prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted. One hundred and twenty-four patients were allocated to receive 2 doses of sodium phosphate plus 240 mg of tablet simethicone or placebo as bowel preparation. Visibility was blindly assessed for the amount of air bubbles and adequacy of colon preparation. Total colonoscopic time, side effects of the medication, endoscopist and patient satisfaction were also compared. RESULTS:Sodium phosphate plus simethicone, compared to sodium phosphate plus placebo, improved visibility by diminishing air bubbles (100.00% vs 42.37%, P < 0.0001) but simethicone failed to demonstrate improvement in adequacy of colon preparation (90.16% vs 81.36%, P = 0.17). Endoscopist and patient satisfaction were increased significantly in the simethicone group. However, there was no difference in the total duration of colonoscopy and side effects of the medication. CONCLUSION:The addition of simethicone is of benefit for colonoscopic bowel preparation by diminishing air bubbles, which results in enhanced visibility. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction is also increased.
Project description:BACKGROUND/AIMS:It is unclear whether patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) require a high dose of sedatives during colonoscopy. In this study, we investigated the pre-procedural anxiety levels, sedative consumption, procedure times, complications, and patient's satisfaction between patients with IBS and controls for ambulatory colonoscopy under sedation. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Rome III criteria were used in the diagnosis of IBS. Anxiety levels were measured using Spielberger's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). Patients received a fixed dose of midazolam (0.02 mg/kg), fentanyl (1 ?g/kg), ketamine (0.3 mg/kg), and incremental doses of propofol under sedation protocol. Demographic data, heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation were measured. Procedure times, recovery and discharge times, drug doses used, complications associated with the sedation, and patient's satisfaction scores were also recorded. RESULTS:The mean Trait (p=0.015), State (p=0.029), Beck anxiety scores (p=0.018), the incidence of disruptive movements (p=0.044), and the amount of propofol (p=0. 024) used were significantly higher in patients with IBS. There was a decline in mean systolic blood pressure at the 6th minute in patients with IBS (p=0.026). No association was found between the sedative requirement and the anxiety scores. CONCLUSION:Patients with IBS who underwent elective colonoscopy procedures expressed higher pre-procedural anxiety scores, required more propofol consumption, and experienced more disruptive movements compared with controls. On the contrary, the increased propofol consumption was not associated with the increased pre-procedural anxiety scores.
Project description:Suboptimal bowel preparation can result in missed colorectal adenoma that can evolve into interval colorectal cancer. This study aims to identify the predictive factors associated with missed adenoma on repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation at initial colonoscopy. A total of 441 patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on initial colonoscopy and who had repeat colonoscopy within two years were included from 2007 to 2014 in six tertiary hospitals. Suboptimal bowel preparation was defined as 'poor' according to the Aronchick scale or a score ? 1 in at least one segment or total score < 6 according to the Boston bowel preparation scale. Of 441 patients, mean age at initial colonoscopy was 59.1 years, and 69.2% patients were male. The mean interval from initial to repeat colonoscopy was 14.1 months. The per-patient adenoma miss rate (AMR) was 42.4% for any adenoma and 5.4% for advanced adenoma. When the association between baseline clinical characteristics and missed lesions on repeat colonoscopy was analyzed, dyslipidemia (odds ratio [OR], 5.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-23.66; P = 0.034), and high-risk adenoma (OR, 4.45; 95% CI, 1.12-17.68; P = 0.034) on initial colonoscopy were independent risk factors for missed advanced adenoma. In patients with suboptimal bowel preparation, dyslipidemia and high-risk adenoma on initial colonoscopy were independently predictive of missed advanced adenoma on repeat colonoscopy.
Project description:Background and study aims?Dietary restrictions are integral to colonoscopy preparation and impact patient satisfaction. Utilizing split-dose, lower-volume polyethylene glycol 3350-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS), this study compared colon preparation adequacy of a low-residue diet to clear liquids using a validated grading scale. Patients and methods?This was a prospective, randomized, single-blinded, single-center non-inferiority study evaluating diet the day prior to outpatient colonoscopy. Subjects were randomized to a Low-Residue diet for breakfast and lunch, or Clears only. All subjects received split dose PEG-ELS.?The primary endpoint was preparation adequacy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), with adequate defined as a score?>?5.?Secondary endpoints included mean BBPS scores for the entire colon and individual segments, satisfaction, adverse events, polyp and adenoma detection rates, and impact on sleep and daily activities. Results?Final analysis included 140 subjects, 72 assigned to Clears and 68 to Low-Residue. The Low-Residue diet was non-inferior to Clears (risk difference?=?-?5.08?%, P?=?0.04) after adjusting for age. Mean colon cleansing scores were not significantly different overall and for individual colonic segments. Satisfaction with the Low-Residue diet was significantly greater (P?=?0.01). The adenoma detection rate was not statistically significantly different between study groups, but the number of adenomas detected was significantly greater with Clears (P?=?0.01). Adverse events and impact on sleep and activities did not differ significantly between diet arms. Conclusions?A low-residue diet for breakfast and lunch the day prior to colonoscopy was non-inferior to clear liquids alone for achieving adequate colon cleansing when using split dose PEG-ELS.