Educational Video Followed by Retelling Bowel Preparation Process to Improve Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation Quality: A Prospective Nursing Intervention Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study investigated the effect of a patient education video followed by retelling the process of bowel preparation on colonoscopy bowel preparation quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS This was a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial of outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. Patients were randomized (1: 1) to the video + retelling group or the control group. The primary endpoint was to assess the bowel preparation quality using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality scale (Ottawa score). Risk factors associated with poor bowel preparation were also evaluated. RESULTS The video + retelling group had a higher percentage of patients with adequate colonoscopy bowel preparation (Ottawa score <6) than the control group (P<0.001). Mean Ottawa total scores significantly differed between the control group and the video + retelling group (4.18±1.4 vs. 3.05±1.3, P<0.001). The video + retelling group showed superior cleanliness in the right, middle, and recto-sigmoid colon segments (all Ps <0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed that male gender (OR=2.10, 95%CI: 1.098-4.018, P=0.025), diabetes mellitus (OR=2.830, 95%CI: 1.257-6.372, P=0.012), and no educational video followed by retelling bowel preparation process (OR=3.02, 95%CI: 1.731-5.270, P<0.001) were independently associated with poor bowel preparation. CONCLUSIONS Use of an educational video followed by asking patients to retell the process of bowel preparation after receiving regular instructions is a convenient and risk-free practice that enhances the compliance with bowel preparation guidance and improves bowel preparation quality.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".