BACKGROUND: Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy is an underused cancer prevention procedure. Physicians often cite patient discomfort as a reason for not requesting sigmoidoscopy, but patient experiences and attitudes toward sigmoidoscopy have not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To measure patient satisfaction and the determinants of satisfaction with screening sigmoidoscopy. METHODS: An instrument to assess satisfaction with screening sigmoidoscopy was developed. Responses were evaluated with a factor analysis, tested for reproducibility and internal consistency, and validated against an external standard. RESULTS: A total of 1221 patients (666 men and 555 women; mean age, 61.8 years) were surveyed after sigmoidoscopy. Examinations were performed by a nurse practitioner (n = 668), internist (n = 344), or gastrointestinal specialist (n= 184). More than 93% of the participants strongly agreed or agreed they would be willing to undergo another examination, and 74.9% would strongly recommend the procedure to their friends. Regarding pain and discomfort, 76.2% strongly agreed or agreed that the examination did not cause a lot of pain, 78.1% stated that it did not cause a lot of discomfort, and 68.5% thought that it was more comfortable than they expected. Fifteen percent to 25% of the patients indicated they had a lot of pain, great discomfort, or more discomfort than expected. Women were more likely to have significant pain or discomfort than men (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-4.3; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 70% of individuals who undergo screening sigmoidoscopy are satisfied and find the procedure more comfortable than expected, whereas only 15% to 25% find the procedure unpleasant. Physicians should not project discomfort onto patients as a reason for not requesting screening sigmoidoscopy.
BACKGROUND: Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy is an underused cancer prevention procedure. Physicians often cite patient discomfort as a reason for not requesting sigmoidoscopy, but patient experiences and attitudes toward sigmoidoscopy have not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To measure patient satisfaction and the determinants of satisfaction with screening sigmoidoscopy. METHODS: An instrument to assess satisfaction with screening sigmoidoscopy was developed. Responses were evaluated with a factor analysis, tested for reproducibility and internal consistency, and validated against an external standard. RESULTS: A total of 1221 patients (666 men and 555 women; mean age, 61.8 years) were surveyed after sigmoidoscopy. Examinations were performed by a nurse practitioner (n = 668), internist (n = 344), or gastrointestinal specialist (n= 184). More than 93% of the participants strongly agreed or agreed they would be willing to undergo another examination, and 74.9% would strongly recommend the procedure to their friends. Regarding pain and discomfort, 76.2% strongly agreed or agreed that the examination did not cause a lot of pain, 78.1% stated that it did not cause a lot of discomfort, and 68.5% thought that it was more comfortable than they expected. Fifteen percent to 25% of the patients indicated they had a lot of pain, great discomfort, or more discomfort than expected. Women were more likely to have significant pain or discomfort than men (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-4.3; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 70% of individuals who undergo screening sigmoidoscopy are satisfied and find the procedure more comfortable than expected, whereas only 15% to 25% find the procedure unpleasant. Physicians should not project discomfort onto patients as a reason for not requesting screening sigmoidoscopy.
Authors: S Gölder; W Vogt; H Lichti; H C Rath; A Kullmann; J Schölmerich; F Kullmann Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2006-07-04 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Maximilian Stephens; Luke F Hourigan; Mark Appleyard; George Ostapowicz; Mark Schoeman; Paul V Desmond; Jane M Andrews; Michael Bourke; David Hewitt; David A Margolin; Gerald J Holtmann Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Maaike J Denters; Marije Deutekom; Bert Derkx; Patrick M Bossuyt; Paul Fockens; Evelien Dekker Journal: Frontline Gastroenterol Date: 2012-05-06
Authors: Joel L Weissfeld; Robert E Schoen; Paul F Pinsky; Robert S Bresalier; V Paul Doria-Rose; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Timothy Church; Lance A Yokochi; Susan Yurgalevitch; Joshua Rathmell; Gerald L Andriole; Saundra Buys; E David Crawford; Mona Fouad; Claudine Isaacs; Lois Lamerato; Douglas Reding; Philip C Prorok; Christine D Berg Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: R Keith Fincher; Jonathan Myers; Scott McNear; John D Liveringhouse; Richard L Topolski; Jennifer McNear Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2007-03-30 Impact factor: 3.199