BACKGROUND: The effect of patient education on bowel preparation for colonoscopy has not been well studied. An improvement in patient understanding of the rationale for bowel preparation before colonoscopy might enhance adherence to the prescribed bowel regimen and improve bowel preparation quality. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of a simple educational intervention on the quality of bowel preparation during colonoscopy. DESIGN: Prospective, single-center, endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Tertiary-care center. PATIENTS: This study involved outpatients directly referred for screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Inclusion of a visual aid depicting both clean and dirty colons in addition to standard written colonoscopy instructions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes included the need for repeat colonoscopy because of inadequate bowel preparation, insertion and withdrawal time, polyps detected, and patient tolerance of bowel preparation and colonoscopy. RESULTS: We analyzed 492 patients given a visual aid and 477 controls. The percentage of colonoscopies with a BBPS score≥5 was similar in both groups (91% visual aid vs 89% control, P=.43). The odds ratio for having a BBPS≥5 in the visual aid group was 1.24 (95% CI, 0.83-1.87) compared with controls. Other secondary outcomes were similar between groups. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. CONCLUSION: A simple card with photographs and text explaining the rationale for bowel preparation did not change the quality of bowel preparation in patients directly referred for screening colonoscopy. Future educational studies may need to include more interactive or intensive methods. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00643682.).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The effect of patient education on bowel preparation for colonoscopy has not been well studied. An improvement in patient understanding of the rationale for bowel preparation before colonoscopy might enhance adherence to the prescribed bowel regimen and improve bowel preparation quality. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of a simple educational intervention on the quality of bowel preparation during colonoscopy. DESIGN: Prospective, single-center, endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Tertiary-care center. PATIENTS: This study involved outpatients directly referred for screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Inclusion of a visual aid depicting both clean and dirty colons in addition to standard written colonoscopy instructions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes included the need for repeat colonoscopy because of inadequate bowel preparation, insertion and withdrawal time, polyps detected, and patient tolerance of bowel preparation and colonoscopy. RESULTS: We analyzed 492 patients given a visual aid and 477 controls. The percentage of colonoscopies with a BBPS score≥5 was similar in both groups (91% visual aid vs 89% control, P=.43). The odds ratio for having a BBPS≥5 in the visual aid group was 1.24 (95% CI, 0.83-1.87) compared with controls. Other secondary outcomes were similar between groups. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. CONCLUSION: A simple card with photographs and text explaining the rationale for bowel preparation did not change the quality of bowel preparation in patients directly referred for screening colonoscopy. Future educational studies may need to include more interactive or intensive methods. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00643682.).
Authors: Fw Leung; Jo Harker; Jw Leung; Rm Siao-Salera; Sk Mann; Fc Ramirez; S Friedland; A Amato; F Radaelli; S Paggi; V Terruzzi; Yh Hsieh Journal: J Interv Gastroenterol Date: 2011-07-01
Authors: Marina Serper; Andrew J Gawron; Samuel G Smith; Anjali A Pandit; Allison R Dahlke; Elizabeth A Bojarski; Rajesh N Keswani; Michael S Wolf Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Sean C Rice; Tina Higginbotham; Melanie J Dean; James C Slaughter; Patrick S Yachimski; Keith L Obstein Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Audrey H Calderwood; Judith R Logan; Michael Zurfluh; David A Lieberman; Brian C Jacobson; Timothy C Heeren; Paul C Schroy Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Samuel G Smith; Christian von Wagner; Lesley M McGregor; Laura M Curtis; Elizabeth A H Wilson; Marina Serper; Michael S Wolf Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.585