Patient Satisfaction with Colonoscopy: A Literature Review and Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that colonoscopic colorectal cancer screening be undertaken every 10 years after the age of 50 years. However, because the procedure does not meet criteria that promote screening uptake, patient satisfaction with colonoscopy may encourage repeat screening. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature and conduct a pilot study of patient satisfaction with the colonoscopy experience. METHODS: All cohort studies from January 1997 to August 2008 in the MEDLINE database that measured either patient satisfaction with colonoscopy, patient willingness to return for colonoscopy under the same conditions or patient preference for colonoscopy compared with other large bowel procedures were identified. The search was supplemented by journal citation lists in the retrieved articles. RESULTS: Of the 29 studies identified, 15 met the inclusion criteria. Consistently, the vast majority of patients (approximately 95%) were very satisfied with their colonoscopy experience. Patient satisfaction was similar for screening and nonscreening colonoscopy. Patient willingness to return for the procedure ranged from 73% to 100%. Of the five studies that examined modality preference, three studies reported the majority of patients preferred colonography to colonoscopy and two studies reported the reverse. Our pilot study findings mirrored those of other studies that were conducted in the United States. The major limitation of the included studies was that patients who were most dissatisfied may have gone elsewhere to have their colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were very satisfied with colonoscopy. The majority were willing to return for repeat testing under the same conditions, and colonoscopy was not preferred over other modalities. However, studies were limited by methodological shortcomings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".