| Literature DB >> 27329204 |
Benjamin Michael Walter1, Peter Klare, Bruno Neu, Roland M Schmid, Stefan von Delius.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In gastroenterology a sufficient colon cleansing improves adenoma detection rate and prevents the need for preterm repeat colonoscopies due to invalid preparation. It has been shown that patient education is of major importance for improvement of colon cleansing.Entities:
Keywords: colonoscopy; colonoscopy preparation; patient education; short message service
Year: 2016 PMID: 27329204 PMCID: PMC4933803 DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.5289
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Figure 1Graphical workflow of the text messaging (short message service, SMS)-guided colonoscopy preparation; examples of SMS text messages.
Patient characteristics of mobile phone usage.
| Characteristic | Mobile phone | Smartphone | None |
| Number of patients, n (%) | 128 (43) | 119 (39) | 53 (18) |
| Sex (male/female) | 64/64 | 76/43 | 27/26 |
| Age in years, mean (SEMa) | 65.8 (12.9) | 47.3 (15.5) | 82.2 (8.6) |
a SEM: standard error of the mean.
Patient characteristics.
| Characteristic | SMS group | Control group |
| No. of patients | 20 | 20 |
| Sex (male/female) | 10/10 (50%/50%) | 10/10 (50%/50%) |
| Age in years, mean (SDa) | 46.5 (12.6) | 46.5 (13.0) |
| Method of bowel preparation, PEGb solution no. (%) | 20 (100.0) | 20 (100.0) |
| First colonoscopy (yes/no) | 13/7 (65%/35%) | 12/8 (60%/40%) |
| SMSc received and followed instructions (yes/no) | 19/1 (95%/5%) | N/Ad |
| Preparation procedure is perceived as stressfule, mean (SDa) | 5.6 (2.4) | N/A |
| SMS information perceived as helpful informationf, mean (SD) | 7.8 (2.2) | N/A |
| SMS information perceived as hindranceg, mean (SD) | 1.1 (0.31) | N/A |
| Reuse of SMS reminder system for another colonoscopy (yes/no) | 20/0 (100%/0%) | N/A |
| Recommendation of SMS system to friends and relatives (yes/no) | 19/1 (95%/5%) | N/A |
a SD: standard deviation.
b PEG: polyethylene glycol.
c SMS: short message service.
d N/A: not assessed.
e Evaluation: 1, no stress to 10, very stressful.
f Evaluation: 1, not helpful to 10, very helpful.
g Evaluation: 1, not a hindrance to 10, great hindrance.
Figure 2Average Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score in the short message service (SMS) study group was significantly higher in comparison with the control group (7.3 vs 6.4, P=.035). BBPS: 0, minimum to 9, maximum.
Figure 3The average Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score (0, minimum to 3, maximum) split for each colon region. SMS: short message service; n.s.: not significant.