A232 AUTOMATED TELEPHONE REMINDER TO IMPROVE BOWEL PREPARATION QUALITY FOR COLONOSCOPY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Colonoscopy preparation is challenging, involving the consumption of a large volume of prep solution in the day leading up to procedure. Adequate preparation is vital for the endoscopist to visualize the full colon. Upwards of 20% of outpatient colonoscopies have inadequate bowel prep, often requiring a repeat procedure and accompanying costs and risks. Prior research has examined the impact of educational tools such as booklets and visual aids to improve bowel prep quality. The best success thus far has been with time-intensive physician or nurse delivered educational sessions (in person or by phone). No studies to date have quantified the impact of an automated telephone reminder system on bowel prep quality. This study aims to determine the impact of an automated telephone reminder system on measured quality of bowel preparation in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. This study is a prospective trial, using a randomized consent structure. Adult patients were consented to a receive telephone reminder at their initial booking visit. Those who consented were randomized into either the intervention group that received a reminder in addition to written instructions, or a control group that received written instructions alone. The automated reminder was a 30 second recorded message that reminded patients of the upcoming colonoscopy and emphasized the importance of fluid intake and following the bowel prep instructions. Upon arrival for colonoscopy, subjects were informed of the study, asked for consent to participate in the full study, and completed a questionnaire regarding their fluid consumption and recollection of receiving a telephone reminder. Each colonoscopy was scored by the endoscopist performing the procedure. They were blinded to the group allocation. The primary outcome was the numeric score of bowel preparation quality using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale. 298 patients agreed to receive a telephone reminder, with 260 randomized to intervention and control groups. The randomized consent protocol meant that participants had to consent again prior to colonoscopy. Ultimately, 108 patients were included in the intervention group and 115 in the control group. Analysis of the endoscopist-scored bowel preparation quality showed no significant difference in the primary outcome of mean Ottawa Bowel Preparation Score between the two groups. The reminder group had a score of 5.41 versus a score of 5.81 in the no reminder group (the score is from 0 to 14, where a lower score indicates better prep). This study did not show any significant difference in measured bowel preparation quality between those who had received an automated telephone reminder and those who did not. Despite this, patients subjectively reported satisfaction with the reminder phone call. Figure 1: Study results Ferring Pharmaceuticals
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».