A230 INFORMATION NEEDS AND PREFERENCES REPORTED BY INDIVIDUALS UNDERGOING COLONOSCOPY: RESULTS FROM A LARGE REGIONAL SURVEY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To determine for patients undergoing colonoscopy their experiences, needs, and preferences for information and to assess predictors of willingness to go direct-to-colonoscopy and self-reported ability to follow bowel preparation instructions A self-administered survey was distributed to patients in 8 endoscopy facilities in Winnipeg when they attended an outpatient colonoscopy. The survey assessed the amount, type, helpfulness, and satisfaction with information provided before the procedure and inquired about other possible sources of information in the future. Of the 1,580 respondents, 61% reported receiving adequate information about the indication for their procedure, 53% for the benefits of a colonoscopy, 44% for the risks of the procedure and 40% for expected follow-up after the procedure. Although 90% indicated that it would be helpful or very helpful to receive information from their family physicians, only 25% indicated they had received an adequate amount from their family physician for the current colonoscopy. For follow-up of results, 75% of respondents would find a phone call from their family physician or the colonoscopy service helpful/very helpful and 90% an in person visit with their family physician. For future follow-up colonoscopy, 91% of respondents stated a reminder notice in the mail from a central endoscopy service would be helpful, while 29% indicated that an email reminder would be unhelpful or very unhelpful. For direct-to-colonoscopy, 70% indicated that receiving a phone call from a nurse would make them comfortable to proceed without meeting the endoscopy physician first. Predictors of ability to follow the bowel preparation instructions included finding the distributed information to be clear or very clear [(OR) 5.6 (3.4–9.2)] and satisfaction with the information received [OR 1.7 (1.0–2.0)]. Significant predictors of willingness to go direct-to-colonoscopy for the next colonoscopy included finding the distributed information to be clear or very clear [OR 1.9 (1.2–3.1)], satisfaction with the information received [OR 1.7 (1.0–2.0)], and visiting with the endoscopist prior to their current colonoscopy [OR 3.2 (2.0–5.0)]. Our survey suggests a need to enhance the information distributed to patients before the colonoscopy, particularly on the risks of the procedure and on potential follow-up procedures. There is also an unmet need to involve family physicians in informing patients on the reason for colonoscopy, the nature of the procedure, bowel preparation, and what information they would receive after the colonoscopy. The use of the direct to colonoscopy approach can be facilitated by enhanced pre-colonoscopy information and informational phone contact from nurses. Funding Agencies:
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 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».