Literature DB >> 26841268

Patients' experience of colonoscopy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

Alex Ghanouni1, Andrew Plumb2, Paul Hewitson3, Claire Nickerson4, Colin J Rees5, Christian von Wagner1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Understanding patients' experience of screening programs is crucial for service improvement. The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) aims to achieve this by sending out questionnaires to all patients who undergo a colonoscopy following an abnormal fecal occult blood test result. This study used the questionnaire data to report the experiences of these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on patients who underwent colonoscopy between 2011 and 2012 were extracted from the BCSP database. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize key questionnaire items relating to informed choice, psychological wellbeing, physical experience, and after-effects. Multilevel logistic regression was used to test for associations with variables of interest: sex, age, socioeconomic status, colonoscopy results, and screening center performance (adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, proportion of colonoscopies involving sedation).
RESULTS: Data from 50,858 patients (79.3 % of those eligible) were analyzed. A majority reported a positive experience on items relating to informed choice (e. g. 95.7 % felt they understood the risks) and psychological wellbeing (e. g. 98.3 % felt they were treated with respect). However, an appreciable proportion experienced unexpected test discomfort (21.0 %) or pain at home (14.8 %). There were few notable demographic differences, although women were more likely than men to experience unexpected discomfort (25.1 % vs. 18.0 %; P < 0.01) and pain at home (18.2 % vs. 12.3 %; P < 0.01). No associations with center-level variables were apparent.
CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy experience was generally positive, suggesting high satisfaction with the BCSP. Reported pain and unexpected discomfort were more negative than most other outcomes (particularly for women); measures to improve this should be considered. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26841268     DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-100613

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  10 in total

Review 1.  Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative.

Authors:  Michal F Kaminski; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Marek Bugajski; Michael Bretthauer; Colin J Rees; Evelien Dekker; Geir Hoff; Rodrigo Jover; Stepan Suchanek; Monika Ferlitsch; John Anderson; Thomas Roesch; Rolf Hultcranz; Istvan Racz; Ernst J Kuipers; Kjetil Garborg; James E East; Maciej Rupinski; Birgitte Seip; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Silvia Minozzi; Raf Bisschops; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 2.  Patient-Reported Experience Measures for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography.

Authors:  Annica Rosvall; Magdalena Annersten Gershater; Christine Kumlien; Ervin Toth; Malin Axelsson
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-19

3.  Patient experience, satisfaction and shared decision-making in colorectal cancer screening: protocol of the mixed-methods study CyDESA.

Authors:  Anna Selva; Pilar López; Teresa Puig; Francesc Macià; Clara Selva; Yolanda Álvarez-Pérez; Rebeca Terraza; Andrea Burón; Salvador Tarek Machlab; Carles Pericay; Ivan Solà; Núria Torà; Vanesa Rodríguez; Cristina Barrufet; Anna Aymar; Marisa Baré
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 3.006

Review 4.  The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Program: current perspectives on strategies for improvement.

Authors:  Sara Koo; Laura Jane Neilson; Christian Von Wagner; Colin John Rees
Journal:  Risk Manag Healthc Policy       Date:  2017-12-04

5.  Using Social Media to Characterize Public Sentiment Toward Medical Interventions Commonly Used for Cancer Screening: An Observational Study.

Authors:  Omar Metwally; Seth Blumberg; Uri Ladabaum; Sidhartha R Sinha
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 6.  Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction.

Authors:  Otto S Lin
Journal:  Intest Res       Date:  2017-10-23

7.  Evaluation of anesthesia quality with three methods: "propofol + fentanyl" vs. "propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine" vs. "propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine" in patients referred to the scoping ward.

Authors:  Sepehr Edalatkhah; Ebrahim Hazrati; Mahmoodreza Hashemi; Alireza Golaghaei; Behroz Kheradmand; Mohamadreza Rafiei
Journal:  J Family Med Prim Care       Date:  2022-02-16

8.  ScotCap - A large observational cohort study.

Authors:  Campbell MacLeod; Jemma Hudson; Michelle Brogan; Seonaidh Cotton; Shaun Treweek; Graeme MacLennan; Angus J M Watson
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 3.917

9.  A Response Surface Model Exploration of Dosing Strategies in Gastrointestinal Endoscopies Using Midazolam and Opioids.

Authors:  Jing-Yang Liou; Chien-Kun Ting; Ming-Chih Hou; Mei-Yung Tsou
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.889

10.  The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire (CSSQP) for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Development and Validation Study.

Authors:  Alicia Brotons; Mercedes Guilabert; Francisco Javier Lacueva; José Joaquín Mira; Blanca Lumbreras; María Dolores Picó; Julián Vitaller; Mariana Fe García-Sepulcre; Germán Belda; Javier Sola-Vera
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 3.390

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.