A230 INFORMATION NEEDS AND PREFERENCES REPORTED BY INDIVIDUALS UNDERGOING COLONOSCOPY: RESULTS FROM A LARGE REGIONAL SURVEY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine for patients undergoing colonoscopy their experiences, needs, and preferences for information and to assess predictors of willingness to go direct-to-colonoscopy and self-reported ability to follow bowel preparation instructions A self-administered survey was distributed to patients in 8 endoscopy facilities in Winnipeg when they attended an outpatient colonoscopy. The survey assessed the amount, type, helpfulness, and satisfaction with information provided before the procedure and inquired about other possible sources of information in the future. Of the 1,580 respondents, 61% reported receiving adequate information about the indication for their procedure, 53% for the benefits of a colonoscopy, 44% for the risks of the procedure and 40% for expected follow-up after the procedure. Although 90% indicated that it would be helpful or very helpful to receive information from their family physicians, only 25% indicated they had received an adequate amount from their family physician for the current colonoscopy. For follow-up of results, 75% of respondents would find a phone call from their family physician or the colonoscopy service helpful/very helpful and 90% an in person visit with their family physician. For future follow-up colonoscopy, 91% of respondents stated a reminder notice in the mail from a central endoscopy service would be helpful, while 29% indicated that an email reminder would be unhelpful or very unhelpful. For direct-to-colonoscopy, 70% indicated that receiving a phone call from a nurse would make them comfortable to proceed without meeting the endoscopy physician first. Predictors of ability to follow the bowel preparation instructions included finding the distributed information to be clear or very clear [(OR) 5.6 (3.4–9.2)] and satisfaction with the information received [OR 1.7 (1.0–2.0)]. Significant predictors of willingness to go direct-to-colonoscopy for the next colonoscopy included finding the distributed information to be clear or very clear [OR 1.9 (1.2–3.1)], satisfaction with the information received [OR 1.7 (1.0–2.0)], and visiting with the endoscopist prior to their current colonoscopy [OR 3.2 (2.0–5.0)]. Our survey suggests a need to enhance the information distributed to patients before the colonoscopy, particularly on the risks of the procedure and on potential follow-up procedures. There is also an unmet need to involve family physicians in informing patients on the reason for colonoscopy, the nature of the procedure, bowel preparation, and what information they would receive after the colonoscopy. The use of the direct to colonoscopy approach can be facilitated by enhanced pre-colonoscopy information and informational phone contact from nurses. Funding Agencies:
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".