MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238054153 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.021

A20 PREDICTORS OF PATIENT RELUCTANCE TO USE SPLIT DOSE BOWEL PREPARATION FOR EARLY MORNING COLONOSCOPIES

2018· article· en· W4238054153 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leigh Ann Shafer, Celeste Waldman, John R. Walker, Valérie Michaud, C N Bernstein, Linda Hathout, J Park, J. Sisler, Gayle Restall, Kristy Wittmeier, Harminder Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverticular Disease and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyLaxativeMorningMultivariate analysisAmbulatoryInternal medicineColorectal cancerConstipation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

European and North American guidelines strongly recommend use of split-dose bowel preparation (SDBP) for all colonoscopies based on evidence from meta-analyses. Interviews and focus groups with endoscopists indicate some reluctance to use SDBP for early morning colonoscopies because they believe patients will not agree to it. We assessed colonoscopy patients’ opinions about getting up very early in the morning to take a SDBP. self-administered anonymous survey was distributed between August 2015 to June 2016 to patients immediately prior to their outpatient colonoscopy in 6 hospitals and 2 ambulatory care centers in Winnipeg, Canada. Multinomial multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of reluctance to early morning SDBP. Of the 1336 respondents (52% females, median age 57 years), 33% had used SDBP and overall 13.5% did not complete the entire recommended laxative intake. 49% of survey respondents were willing or very willing to do early am SDBP, 24% were neutral and 27% reluctant or very reluctant. When the outcome of reluctance was compared to willing, the predictors of reluctance on multivariate analysis included more than one prior colonoscopy (OR 1.60; 95% CI: 1.04–2.47), female gender (OR 1.81; 95% CI: 1.29–2.54), lack of clear information (OR: 4.40 95% CI: 2.08–9.28), high level of anxiety for bowel preparation (score > 80 on a 0–100 scale) (OR 1.79 95% CI: 1.02–3.14), and type of laxative used (4 litres PEG alone vs. sodium picosulfalte with adjunct agent: OR 1.60 95% CI: 1.01–2.53). There was no effect of procedure time of day, indication for colonoscopy or level of education. There was an interaction effect between use of SDBP and finishing the laxative intake. Among those who finished the laxative, use of day before preparation was associated with a more than 2-fold greater reluctance to use SDBP for future colonoscopy (OR 2.24 95% CI: 1.43–3.51). The same predictors were identified when reluctance was compared to willing and neutral combined. In spite of clear evidence of superior efficacy of SDBP, there continues to be limited use of SDBP in usual clinical practice. However, only a minority of patients expressed reluctance to get up early for SDBP. Efforts to clearly inform patients about the advantages of SDBP and arrangements to move the most reluctant to later morning appointments may support increased SDBP use. Research Manitoba

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicDiverticular Disease and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207