Barriers and Facilitators to a Good Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A well-visualized colon during colonoscopy has a direct impact on interpretation of findings and need for repeat procedure. Studies have been conducted in the adult population to assess factors contributing to improved bowel preparation. The primary aim of this study was to determine barriers and facilitators to good preparation in children. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach was utilized. Children age 2 to 18 years old, and their parents were recruited from the McMaster University Gastroenterology clinic from May 2015 to January 2016. Semistructured interviews were conducted assessing the understanding of the preparation protocol, and the compliance and tolerability of the preparation. A thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Eleven families participated (7 children and 14 parents). Fifty percent of the children were under 11 years of age, and 73% were undergoing bowel preparation for the first time. Participants identified 26 subthemes, which were categorized into 4 broad themes. Barriers included confusion regarding mixing of the preparation and allowable diet during the preparation day, as well as lack of clarity on expected stool end goals. Facilitators included ease of access of the gastroenterology team, small volume of liquid mixed with the preparation, few adverse effects, and the provision of an understandable handout. Parental motivation to achieve a good outcome was also a facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first qualitative study focusing on children undergoing a home bowel preparation for a colonoscopy. Being able to identify barriers and facilitators will allow gastroenterologists to improve the quality of bowel preparation and overall experience for the pediatric population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".