OUP accepted manuscript
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient perspectives have important roles in improving the quality of colonoscopy services. The purpose of this qualitative study was to obtain the perspectives of patients who recently had undergone colonoscopy procedures, about their experiences with bowel preparation, the procedure itself, and communication of follow-up results and recommendations. METHODS: We recruited adults who had undergone a colonoscopy, to participate in semistructured interviews. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analyzed using inductive qualitative methods. RESULTS: Twenty-four adults (58% female) with an average age of 53.8 years participated. Results were categorized within the themes of bowel preparation, the colonoscopy procedure and communication of the results. Participants appreciated having clear consistent plain language messages about bowel preparation. Some participants experienced additional challenges to understanding, and navigating, colonoscopy procedures. At the time of the procedure, positive and reassuring interactions with, and between, members of the health care team, in addition to management of physical pain and discomfort, were important. Participants wanted clear and timely information about the results of their test. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding patients' needs for information and support can promote higher quality colonoscopy services. Our findings suggest that quality indicators should include: patients' perspectives of the clarity of bowel instructions; the need for supports that are not routinely provided; the extent to which concerns about the procedure are addressed; interactions with the endoscopy team; the endoscopy team's interactions with each other; comfort during the procedure, and the timeliness and clarity of results and follow-up instructions. These indicators should be included in annual patient surveys.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.784 | 0.601 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".