Literature DB >> 11522970

Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy.

G A Akerkar1, J Yee, R Hung, K McQuaid.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Virtual colonoscopy has excellent sensitivity for the detection of cancer and polyps greater than 1 cm in diameter. For virtual colonoscopy to succeed as a screening test for colorectal neoplasia, it must be well tolerated and accepted by patients. Patients' experiences with virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy were assessed and compared.
METHODS: Patients referred to the GI clinic for colonoscopy for any indication were recruited to undergo virtual colonoscopy before conventional colonoscopy. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire twice: after virtual colonoscopy and after completing both tests. Three variables, overall pain, discomfort, and lack of respect, were assessed by using a 7-point Liken scale with higher scores denoting a worse experience. Patients' preferences for virtual colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy were determined with a time tradeoff technique. To verify response stability, patients were asked to return an additional questionnaire by mail at 24 hours.
RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-five patients completed the questionnaire immediately after the procedures, and 83 patients completed the questionnaire at 24 hours. At both 0 and 24 hours, patients reported more pain, discomfort, and less respect after virtual colonoscopy than conventional colonoscopy (p < 0.01). The overall agreement (Kappa statistic) between times 0 and 24 hours was fair. Patients reported that they preferred conventional colonoscopy and would wait longer for conventional colonoscopy (mean = 4.9 weeks) than undergo a virtual colonoscopy (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients tolerate both virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy, although they report more pain, discomfort, and less respect undergoing virtual colonoscopy. Efforts to improve patient experience during virtual colonoscopy need to be investigated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11522970     DOI: 10.1067/mge.2001.117595

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  28 in total

Review 1.  [Conventional and virtual colonoscopy].

Authors:  C Ell; T Rabenstein
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 0.743

2.  The virtuosity of virtuality or how real is virtual colonography.

Authors:  H Herfarth; A G Schreyer
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Steven J Heitman; Braden J Manns; Robert J Hilsden; Andrew Fong; Stafford Dean; Joseph Romagnuolo
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 4.  CT colonography: an update.

Authors:  Andrik J Aschoff; Andrea S Ernst; Hans-Juergen Brambs; Markus S Juchems
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-09-25       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Virtual autopsy.

Authors:  Guy N Rutty; Bruno Morgan
Journal:  Forensic Sci Med Pathol       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 2.007

6.  Comparative economic evaluation of data from the ACRIN National CT Colonography Trial with three cancer intervention and surveillance modeling network microsimulations.

Authors:  David J Vanness; Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Carolyn M Rutter; Ilana F Gareen; Benjamin A Herman; Karen M Kuntz; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Eric J Feuer; Mei-Hsiu Chen; C Daniel Johnson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Utility of computed tomographic colonography in surveillance for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome.

Authors:  Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo; Arto Kivisaari; Leena Kivisaari; Seppo Sarna; Heikki J Järvinen
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 8.  CT colonography and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  Ifigeneia Mavranezouli; James E East; Stuart A Taylor
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-06-27       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  The case for universal screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  James Smith
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2002

10.  Computed tomography colonography (virtual colonoscopy): climax of a new era of validation and transition into community practice.

Authors:  Jacob Thomas; Jeffrey Carenza; Elizabeth McFarland
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2008-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.