Information Experiences, Needs, and Preferences of Colonoscopy Patients: A Pre-Colonoscopy Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Inadequate preparation for colonoscopy is associated with missed diagnoses and avoidable repeat procedures. Better pre-colonoscopy education may lead to improved bowel preparation, decreased anxiety, and a willingness to go direct-to-colonoscopy. We assessed the experiences, needs and preferences for information of patients undergoing colonoscopy. Methods: A self-administered survey was distributed between 08/2015-06/2016 to patients in 8 endoscopy facilities when they attended an outpatient colonoscopy. The amount, type, helpfulness, and satisfaction with information provided were analyzed. Predictors of satisfaction with various aspects of the information received, as well as overall satisfaction with the information were determined. Results: 1,580 respondents answered parts of or all of the survey questions. 82% of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the information they received. However, only half of respondents coming for a repeat colonoscopy and 40-44% of those coming for first colonoscopy perceived receiving just the right amount of information from their endoscopy doctor (directly or by brochure). One quarter or less of the respondents indicated they received just the right amount of information from any source other than their colonoscopy doctor, and many indicated that they had received no information. 38% coming for a first colonoscopy and 44% coming for a repeat colonoscopy indicated they received no information from their family physicians. Those coming for their first colonoscopy had a lower average score (9.7 vs 11.1, p<0.001) for amount of information received (scale 0-15), were less satisfied/very satisfied with the information they received (p=0.005) and found the information to be less clear/very clear (p=0.004). Conclusion: Our data shows patients want information from multiple sources and multiple types of information and are satisfied with information when they are provided with it. However, there is a need to improve dissemination through family physicians and endoscopists as well as improve the process for those going direct-to-colonoscopy. There is also room for improvement to discuss risks and follow-up for the procedure. Providing information to patients requires a patient-centered approach. Being able to offer a patient multiple sources of information such as a brochure, in-person time with a physician, a video, or an application will ultimately allow the patient to gather the information they need and be better prepared for their procedure.507 Figure 1. Multivariable logistic regression analysis for satisfaction with information received
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".