OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to apply qualitative techniques to assimilate data on patient experience and attitudes during MR colonography (MRC) and colonoscopy (CC). METHODS: 18 patients (11 male, 8 female, median age 40.5 years), 10 of whom had known colonic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and 8 who were under investigation for suspected colonic neoplasia (non-IBD), underwent MRC and conventional CC. Semi-structured interviews were performed to assimilate test experiences and preferences, and themes were extracted using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified three main themes: (i) physical experience, (ii) information provision and (iii) overall preference. Patients expressed mixed views about the physical experience of MRC but specifically identified water filling, breath holding and lying still as problematic. Anxiety was expressed regarding potential incontinence. Scanner noise interfered with the understanding of instructions, particularly amongst non-IBD patients. Non-IBD patients expressed greater anxiety over the delay in receiving the MRC report than IBD patients. In general MRI was considered as the more informative and safer investigation. Patients reported more physical discomfort during CC (notably IBD patients) related to air insufflation and colonoscopic manipulation but were more satisfied with the feedback they received. 10 patients (56%) stated an overall preference for MRC and 5 (28%) preferred CC. Reasons for preferences stated by the patients included discomfort, speed of the test, safety, perceived diagnostic ability and the ability to take biopsies. CONCLUSION: Experiences of MRC and CC are complex and influenced by clinical indication. Individuals place different weightings on the relative importance of test attributes including discomfort, noise, immobility, feedback, safety and fear of incontinence and this defines overall preference.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to apply qualitative techniques to assimilate data on patient experience and attitudes during MR colonography (MRC) and colonoscopy (CC). METHODS: 18 patients (11 male, 8 female, median age 40.5 years), 10 of whom had known colonic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and 8 who were under investigation for suspected colonic neoplasia (non-IBD), underwent MRC and conventional CC. Semi-structured interviews were performed to assimilate test experiences and preferences, and themes were extracted using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified three main themes: (i) physical experience, (ii) information provision and (iii) overall preference. Patients expressed mixed views about the physical experience of MRC but specifically identified water filling, breath holding and lying still as problematic. Anxiety was expressed regarding potential incontinence. Scanner noise interfered with the understanding of instructions, particularly amongst non-IBD patients. Non-IBD patients expressed greater anxiety over the delay in receiving the MRC report than IBD patients. In general MRI was considered as the more informative and safer investigation. Patients reported more physical discomfort during CC (notably IBD patients) related to air insufflation and colonoscopic manipulation but were more satisfied with the feedback they received. 10 patients (56%) stated an overall preference for MRC and 5 (28%) preferred CC. Reasons for preferences stated by the patients included discomfort, speed of the test, safety, perceived diagnostic ability and the ability to take biopsies. CONCLUSION: Experiences of MRC and CC are complex and influenced by clinical indication. Individuals place different weightings on the relative importance of test attributes including discomfort, noise, immobility, feedback, safety and fear of incontinence and this defines overall preference.
Authors: Jost Langhorst; Christiane A Kühle; Waleed Ajaj; Michael Nüfer; Jörg Barkhausen; Andreas Michalsen; Gustav J Dobos; Thomas C Lauenstein Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: D Hartmann; B Bassler; B Pfeifer; A Eickhoff; U Weickert; J F Riemann; G Layer Journal: Dtsch Med Wochenschr Date: 2006-11-10 Impact factor: 0.628
Authors: Jasper Florie; Erwin Birnie; Rogier E van Gelder; Sebastiaan Jensch; Brigitte Haberkorn; Joep F Bartelsman; Annet van der Sluys Veer; Pleun Snel; Victor P M van der Hulst; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jaap Stoker Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sonja Kinner; Christiane A Kuehle; Jost Langhorst; Susanne C Ladd; Michael Nuefer; Thomas Zoepf; Joerg Barkhausen; Guido Gerken; Thomas C Lauenstein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-05-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Heather M Davey; Jacqueline Lim; Phyllis N Butow; Alexandra L Barratt; Nehmat Houssami; Roberta Higginson Journal: Health Expect Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Christian von Wagner; Steve Halligan; Wendy S Atkin; Richard J Lilford; Dion Morton; Jane Wardle Journal: Health Expect Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Lucas Goense; Alicia S Borggreve; Sophie E Heethuis; Astrid Lhmw van Lier; Richard van Hillegersberg; Stella Mook; Gert J Meijer; Peter S N van Rossum; Jelle P Ruurda Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Thomas M Goodsall; Richard Noy; Tran M Nguyen; Samuel P Costello; Vipul Jairath; Robert V Bryant Journal: J Can Assoc Gastroenterol Date: 2020-01-24