Effect of different nursing educational methods on the quality of bowel cleanliness for patients undergoing colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Colonoscopy is an endoscopic examination of the large intestine and the distal part of the small intestine with a fiber optic camera on a flexible tube passed through the anus. An estimated 11-14 million colonoscopies are performed in the United States annually. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of different nursing educational methods (video, educational booklet, both booklet & video and routine nursing instructions) on the quality of bowel cleanliness for patients undergoing colonoscopy. Methods : Research design: A quiz-experimental research design was being utilized. Subjects and methods: A convenience sample of 120 adult patients was divided into four groups, 30 patients for each. Patients ’ mean age was (42.6 ± 12.8) years from both sexes. The study was conducted at Internal medicine, General surgery departments and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center at Assiut University Hospitals. Tools: Two tools were being utilized: patient assessment sheet and colonoscopy preparation educational methods. Results : More than half of the patients (53.3%) in routine nursing instructions group have a bad level of bowel cleanliness with mean score of Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) of 2.7 ± 2.4, more than two thirds of patients (70%) at preparation video group have a fair level with mean score of BBPS of 4.7 ± 2.2, while more than half of patients in booklet and both video & booklet groups (53.3% & 56.7%) have an excellent level with mean score of BBPS of 5.9 ± 2.4 & 6.7 ± 1.2, respectively. Conclusions : Mo re than half of the patients at educational booklet and both video & booklet groups have an excellent level, more than two thirds of patients at preparation video group have a fair level, while more than half of the patients in routine nursing instructions group have a bad level of bowel cleanliness. Recommendation: Relevant written and visual information facilitate educating patients about proper preparation of the bowel before colonoscopy, signs and symptoms of the potential complications and the importance of seeking rapid medical advice after colonoscopy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".