Information Experiences, Needs, and Preferences of Colonoscopy Patients: A Pre-Colonoscopy Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Inadequate preparation for colonoscopy is associated with missed diagnoses and avoidable repeat procedures. Better pre-colonoscopy education may lead to improved bowel preparation, decreased anxiety, and a willingness to go direct-to-colonoscopy. We assessed the experiences, needs and preferences for information of patients undergoing colonoscopy. Methods: A self-administered survey was distributed between 08/2015-06/2016 to patients in 8 endoscopy facilities when they attended an outpatient colonoscopy. The amount, type, helpfulness, and satisfaction with information provided were analyzed. Predictors of satisfaction with various aspects of the information received, as well as overall satisfaction with the information were determined. Results: 1,580 respondents answered parts of or all of the survey questions. 82% of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the information they received. However, only half of respondents coming for a repeat colonoscopy and 40-44% of those coming for first colonoscopy perceived receiving just the right amount of information from their endoscopy doctor (directly or by brochure). One quarter or less of the respondents indicated they received just the right amount of information from any source other than their colonoscopy doctor, and many indicated that they had received no information. 38% coming for a first colonoscopy and 44% coming for a repeat colonoscopy indicated they received no information from their family physicians. Those coming for their first colonoscopy had a lower average score (9.7 vs 11.1, p<0.001) for amount of information received (scale 0-15), were less satisfied/very satisfied with the information they received (p=0.005) and found the information to be less clear/very clear (p=0.004). Conclusion: Our data shows patients want information from multiple sources and multiple types of information and are satisfied with information when they are provided with it. However, there is a need to improve dissemination through family physicians and endoscopists as well as improve the process for those going direct-to-colonoscopy. There is also room for improvement to discuss risks and follow-up for the procedure. Providing information to patients requires a patient-centered approach. Being able to offer a patient multiple sources of information such as a brochure, in-person time with a physician, a video, or an application will ultimately allow the patient to gather the information they need and be better prepared for their procedure.507 Figure 1. Multivariable logistic regression analysis for satisfaction with information received
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 | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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 ».