| Literature DB >> 28992685 |
Jung Min Lee1, Eun Sun Kim1, Hoon Jai Chun1, In Kyung Yoo1, Jae Min Lee1, Seung Han Kim1, Hyuk Soon Choi1, Bora Keum1, Yeon Seok Seo1, Hong Sik Lee1, Yoon Tae Jeen1, Jong-Jae Park1, Sang Woo Lee1, Soon Ho Um1, Chang Duck Kim1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Patients may feel embarrassed during colonoscopy. Our study aimed to assess changes in patient preference, over the past decade, for the sex of their colonoscopist.Entities:
Keywords: Colonoscopist; Embarrassment; Sex preference
Year: 2017 PMID: 28992685 PMCID: PMC5806923 DOI: 10.5946/ce.2017.057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Endosc ISSN: 2234-2400
Fig. 1.Assembly of the study population.
Baseline Characteristics
| 2008 | 2016 | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (mean±SD, yr) | 52.28±14.43 | 55.32±16.17 | 53.70±15.33 | 0.121 |
| 20–29, | 26 (8.3%) | 25 (9%) | 51 (8.6%) | |
| 30–39, | 41 (13.1%) | 35 (12.6%) | 76 (12.9%) | |
| 40–49, | 67 (21.3%) | 26 (9.4%) | 93 (15.7%) | |
| 50–59, | 74 (23.6%) | 76 (27.4%) | 150 (25.4%) | |
| 60–, | 106 (33.8%) | 115 (41.5%) | 221 (37.4%) | |
| Male, | 185 (58.9%) | 143 (51.6%) | 328 (55.5%) | 0.075 |
| Indication for colonoscopy | 0.000 | |||
| Screening/surveillance, | 70 (22.3%) | 66 (23.8%) | 136 (23.0%) | |
| Symptomatic evaluation[ | 95 (30.3%) | 117 (42.2%) | 212 (35.9%) | |
| Procedure, | 13 (4.1%) | 20 (7.2%) | 33 (5.6%) | |
| Follow-up, | 136 (43.3%) | 74 (26.7%) | 210 (35.5%) | |
| Educational level | 0.041 | |||
| Less than middle school, | 113 (36.0%) | 78 (28.2%) | 191 (32.3%) | |
| High school, | 83 (26.4%) | 97 (35.0%) | 180 (30.5%) | |
| More than college, | 118 (37.6%) | 102 (36.8%) | 220 (37.2%) |
SD, standard deviation.
Statistical significance between groups tested by t-test, Fisher’s exact test or χ2 analysis.
Symptomatic evaluation included abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, anemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, tenesmus, inflammatory bowel disease, and bowel habit change.
Fig. 2.Patient preference with regard to the sex of their colonoscopist.
Logistic Regression Analysis of Gender Preference
| OR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Indication | ||
| Screening/surveillance | 1 | |
| Symptomatic evaluation | 0.892 (0.478–1.664) | 0.720 |
| Procedure | 0.755 (0.220–2.595) | 0.655 |
| Follow-up | 0.858 (0.432–1.701) | 0.660 |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 1 | |
| Female | 4.404 (2.493–7.782) | 0.000 |
| Age | 0.977 (0.961–0.992) | 0.004 |
| Waist circumference | 0.945 (0.859–1.040) | 0.248 |
| Educational level | ||
| Middle school graduate | 1 | |
| High school graduate | 0.604 (0.302–1.211) | 0.156 |
| College graduate | 0.715 (0.349–1.465) | 0.359 |
| Sex of questioner (Yes) | 0.806 (0.390–1.668) | 0.561 |
| Family history of colon cancer (Yes) | 1.119 (0.271–4.622) | 0.877 |
| History of colonoscopy (Yes) | 0.140 (0.017–1.141) | 0.066 |
| Underlying disease | ||
| None | 1 | |
| Diabetes | 0.770 (0.216–2.741) | 0.687 |
| Hypertension | 0.762 (0.188–2.049) | 0.519 |
| Thyroid disease | 0.606 (0.156–163.360) | 0.509 |
| Cardiovascular disease | 0.242 (0.075–10.836) | 0.147 |
| Others | 0.891 (0.060–1.149) | 0.811 |
| Residence | ||
| Seoul | 1 | |
| Regional metropolitan city | 2.967 (0.868–10.139) | 0.083 |
| Country | 0.473 (0.186–1.201) | 0.115 |
| History of sedation | 0.342 (0.033–3.492) | 0.365 |
| Year | ||
| 2008 | 1 | |
| 2016 | 1.674 (1.028–2.725) | 0.038 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Statistical significance between groups was tested by binary logistic regression analysis.
Fig. 3.(A) Relationship between age and sex preference. (B) Relationship between educational level and sex preference.
Fig. 4.Reasons for sex preference.
Fig. 5.Intensity of sex preference: if the patient stated a preference for the sex of their colonoscopist, how much time would they wait for colonoscopy?