Compliance With Bowel Preparation and Its Influencing Factors in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bowel preparation compliance is an important intervenable factor that affects bowel preparation quality, and improving compliance is an important way to optimize bowel preparation outcomes. Despite its importance, the compliance rate and its influencing factors have not been thoroughly evaluated. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the overall compliance with bowel preparation instructions in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Methods: From September 2024 to March 2025, a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted at West China Hospital of Sichuan University, recruiting 740 participants via convenience sampling. We used an 8-item self-report scale to evaluate compliance with bowel preparation instructions. Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (0=completely noncompliant to 3=completely compliant), yielding a total score of 0-24. Higher scores reflected greater compliance, with ≥95% of the maximum score considered adequate compliance. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to assess factors (age, educational level, knowledge of bowel preparation, satisfaction with the taste of the laxative, physical discomfort during bowel preparation) influencing bowel preparation compliance. Results: In this study, 42.0% (311/740) of patients demonstrated adequate compliance with bowel preparation instructions. In the univariate analysis, hypertension history, knowledge of bowel preparation, laxative type, satisfaction with the taste of the laxative, anxiety during bowel preparation, and physical discomfort during bowel preparation all had statistically significant influences. Multivariate analysis showed that older age (odds ratio [OR] 2.27, 95% CI 1.16-4.49), higher educational level (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.41-8.33), adequate knowledge of bowel preparation (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.14-2.24), satisfaction with the taste of the laxative (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.48-3.02), and no physical discomfort during bowel preparation (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.64) were key factors for adequate bowel preparation compliance. Conclusions: Personalizing bowel preparation instructions according to patients' age and education level, and selecting a laxative that suits the patients' taste preferences when available, are feasible ways to improve compliance with bowel preparation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".