BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined how physicians perceive guidelines, much less their perceptions of an Internet presentation of such guidelines. This study assessed physicians' acceptance ofan Internet-based guideline on the appropriateness of colonoscopy. METHODS: Gastroenterologists participating in an international observational study consulted an Internet-based guideline for consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy. The guideline was produced by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE), using a validated method (RAND). Through the use of questionnaires, physicians were asked their opinions and perspectives of the guideline and website. RESULTS: There were 289 patients included in the study. The mean time for consulting the website was 1.8 min, and it was considered easy to use by 86% of physicians. The recommendations were easily located for 82% of patients and physicians agreed with the appropriateness in 86% of cases. According to the EPAGE criteria, colonoscopy was appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate in 59, 28, and 13% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The EPAGE guideline was considered acceptable and user-friendly and the use, usefulness and relevance of the website were considered acceptable. However, its actual use will depend on the removal of certain organizational and cultural obstacles. Copyright 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined how physicians perceive guidelines, much less their perceptions of an Internet presentation of such guidelines. This study assessed physicians' acceptance ofan Internet-based guideline on the appropriateness of colonoscopy. METHODS: Gastroenterologists participating in an international observational study consulted an Internet-based guideline for consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy. The guideline was produced by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE), using a validated method (RAND). Through the use of questionnaires, physicians were asked their opinions and perspectives of the guideline and website. RESULTS: There were 289 patients included in the study. The mean time for consulting the website was 1.8 min, and it was considered easy to use by 86% of physicians. The recommendations were easily located for 82% of patients and physicians agreed with the appropriateness in 86% of cases. According to the EPAGE criteria, colonoscopy was appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate in 59, 28, and 13% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The EPAGE guideline was considered acceptable and user-friendly and the use, usefulness and relevance of the website were considered acceptable. However, its actual use will depend on the removal of certain organizational and cultural obstacles. Copyright 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: A Z Gimeno García; Y González; E Quintero; D Nicolás-Pérez; Z Adrián; R Romero; O Alarcón Fernández; M Hernández; M Carrillo; V Felipe; J Díaz; L Ramos; M Moreno; A Jiménez-Sosa Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2011-11-22 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: M Marzo-Castillejo; J Almeda; J J Mascort; O Cunillera; R Saladich; R Nieto; P Piñeiro; M Llagostera; Fx Cantero; M Segarra; D Puente Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 2.497