A59 FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ANXIETY ABOUT COLONOSCOPY: THE PREPARATION, THE PROCEDURE, AND THE ANTICIPATED FINDINGS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has assessed anxiety related to colonoscopy but has not specifically considered anxiety related to different aspects of the situation – bowel preparation, the procedure itself, and the anticipated findings. A better understanding of anxiety related to the various aspects of colonoscopy may help guide the development of resources or interventions to lessen colonoscopy-related anxiety. We aimed to assess anxiety immediately before a colonoscopy and evaluate variables associated with anxiety about different aspects of the procedure. A self-administered anonymous survey was distributed between August 2015 to June 2016 to patients immediately prior to their outpatient colonoscopy in Winnipeg’s 6 hospitals and 2 ambulatory care centers. Anxiety was assessed with a visual analogue scale in which respondents indicated their anxiety about each of bowel preparation, the procedure and the findings on a 0 to 100 scale. A score of 70 or more was considered a high level of anxiety. Multivariate logistic regression analysis determined predictors of high anxiety. Of the 1336 respondents (52% females, median age 57 years), 18% reported high anxiety about the bowel preparation, 29% about the procedure, and 28% about the findings of the procedure. Predictors of high anxiety about bowel preparation were: female gender (OR 2.90; 95% CI: 1.97–4.25), finding bowel prep information confusing (OR 3.29; 95% CI: 1.64–6.63), unfinished laxative intake (OR 1.71; 95% CI: 1.05–2.80), and high anxiety about the procedure itself (OR 3.06; 95% CI: 2.09–4.49). Predictors of high anxiety about the procedure were: female gender (OR 1.41; 95% CI: 1.02–1.94), high anxiety about bowel prep (OR 3.04; 95% CI: 2.07–4.47), and high anxiety about the findings (OR 4.58; 95% CI: 3.30–6.35), while lower anxiety was seen in those with more than one previous colonoscopy (OR 0.38; 95% CI: 0.24–0.58) and coming direct to scope (OR 0.71; 95% CI: 0.51–0.99). Predictors of high anxiety about the findings were polyp/cancer surveillance (OR 1.98; 95% CI: 1.18–3.30) or symptom investigation (OR 2.02; 95% CI: 1.36–3.00) as reasons for the procedure and anxiety about the procedure (OR 4.51; 95% CI: 3.26–6.24). There was no association between anxiety and educational attainment or the use of the split dose preparation for any of the aspects of the procedure. Fewer people had high anxiety about preparation than about the procedure and findings of the procedure. There are unique predictors of anxiety each of these factors. Higher quality information about preparation, the colonoscopy itself, and findings of the colonoscopy may help to reduce anxiety for some patients. 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 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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".