Predictors of patient reluctance to wake early in the morning for bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a precolonoscopy survey in city-wide practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many endoscopists do not use split-dose bowel preparation (SDBP) for morning colonoscopies. Despite SDBP being recommended practice, they believe patients will not agree to take early morning bowel preparation (BP). We assessed patients' opinions about waking early for BP. METHODS: A self-administered survey was distributed between 08/2015 and 06/2016 to patients in Winnipeg, Canada when they attended an outpatient colonoscopy. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of reluctance to use early morning BP. RESULTS: Of the 1336 respondents (52 % female, median age 57 years), 33 % had used SDBP for their current colonoscopy. Of the 1336, 49 % were willing, 24 % neutral, and 27 % reluctant to do early morning BP. Predictors of reluctant versus willing were number of prior colonoscopies (OR 1.20; 95 %CI: 1.07 - 1.35), female gender (OR 1.65; 95 %CI: 1.19 - 2.29), unclear BP information (OR 1.86; 95 %CI: 1.21 - 2.85), high BP anxiety (OR 2.02; 95 %CI: 1.35 - 3.02), purpose of current colonoscopy being bowel symptoms (OR 1.40; 95 %CI: 1.00 - 1.97), use of 4 L of polyethylene glycol laxative (OR 1.45; 95 %CI: 1.02 - 2.06), not having SDBP (OR 1.96; 95 %CI: 1.31 - 2.93), and not having finished the laxative for the current colonoscopy (OR 1.66; 95 %CI: 1.01 - 2.73). Most of the same predictors were identified when reluctance was compared to willing or neutral, and in ordinal logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Almost three-quarters of patients do not express reluctance to get up early for BP. Among those who are reluctant, improving BP information, allaying BP-related anxiety, and use of low volume BP may increase acceptance of SDBP.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".