Patient Satisfaction with the Endoscopy Experience and Willingness to Return in a Central Canadian Health Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient experiences with endoscopy visits within a large central Canadian health region were evaluated to determine the relationship between the visit experience and the patients' willingness to return for future endoscopy, and to identify the factors associated with patients' willingness to return. METHODS: A self-report survey was distributed to 1200 consecutive individuals undergoing an upper and⁄or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy at any one of the six hospital-based endoscopy facilities in the region. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to assess the association between the patients' overall rating of the visits and willingness to return for repeat procedures under similar medical circumstances. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with willingness to return for repeat endoscopy and overall satisfaction (rating) of the visit. RESULTS: A total of 529 (44%) individuals returned the questionnaire, with 45% rating the visit as excellent and 56% indicating they were extremely likely to return for repeat endoscopy. There was a low moderate correlation between overall rating of the visit and patients' willingness to return for repeat endoscopy (r=0.30). The factors independently associated with patient willingness to return for repeat endoscopy included perceived technical skills of the endoscopists (OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.3 to 5.5]), absence of pain during the procedure (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.3 to 3.6]) and history of previous endoscopy (OR 2.4 [95% CI 1.4 to 4.1]). In contrast, the independent factors associated with the overall rating of the visit included information provided pre- and postprocedure, wait time before and on the day of the visit, and the physical environment. CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate patient return for needed endoscopy, it is important to assess patients' willingness to return because positive behavioural intent is not simply a function of satisfaction with the visit.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".