Literature DB >> 30821625

Screening individuals' experiences of colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy; a mixed methods study.

Marianne K Thygesen1,2, Gunnar Baatrup1,2, Christina Petersen1, Niels Qvist1,2, Rasmus Kroijer1,2, Morten Kobaek-Larsen2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The standard investigation in colorectal cancer screening (optical colonoscopy [OC]) has a less invasive alternative with the colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The experiences of screening individuals are needed to support a decision aid (DA) and to provide a patient view in future health technology assessments (HTA). We aimed to explore the experiences of CCE at home and OC in an outpatient clinic by screening participants who experienced both investigations on the same bowel preparation.
METHODS: In a mixed methods study, Danish screening individuals with a positive immunological fecal occult blood test (FIT) were consecutively included and underwent both CCE and OC in the same bowel preparation. They answered questionnaires about discomfort during CCE, delivered at home, and during a following OC in the outpatient clinic. Data were calculated in percentages and Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for comparisons. Among the 253 included patients, 10 participants were selected for a semi-structured interview about their experiences of the two examinations. The analysis and interpretation of the transcribed data were inspired by Ricoeur.
RESULTS: Questionnaire data were received from 239 participants and revealed significant less discomfort during the CCE than the OC. Interview data included explained discomfort elements in two categories: 'The examination' and 'The setting'. Compared to OC, the CCE was experienced with less pain, embarrassment and invasiveness, but presented challenges and disadvantages as well, i.e., a large camera capsule to swallow, a longer waiting time for test results after CCE and an additional OC, if pathologies were found. The home setting for CCE delivery made the participants feel less like they were ill or patients less restricted and that they received more personal care, but could induce technical challenges.
CONCLUSION: In screening individuals, CCE at home was associated with significantly less discomfort compared to OC at a hospital, and multiple reasons for this was identified.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adult; colorectal neoplasms/prevention &; control; interviews as topic; patient at home; patient reported outcome measures

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30821625     DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2019.1581372

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Oncol        ISSN: 0284-186X            Impact factor:   4.089


  11 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography after incomplete colonoscopy. Application of artificial intelligence algorithms to identify complete colonic investigations.

Authors:  U Deding; J Herp; A-L Havshoei; M Kobaek-Larsen; M M Buijs; E S Nadimi; G Baatrup
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 4.623

3.  Colon capsule endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Lasse Kaalby; Ulrik Deding; Morten Kobaek-Larsen; Anne-Line Volden Havshoi; Erik Zimmermann-Nielsen; Marianne Kirstine Thygesen; Rasmus Kroeijer; Thomas Bjørsum-Meyer; Gunnar Baatrup
Journal:  BMJ Open Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-06

4.  Comparing Colon Capsule Endoscopy to colonoscopy; a symptomatic patient's perspective.

Authors:  Mohd Syafiq Ismail; Greg Murphy; S Semenov; D McNamara
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  Applicability of colon capsule endoscopy as pan-endoscopy: From bowel preparation, transit, and rating times to completion rate and patient acceptance.

Authors:  Fanny E R Vuik; Sarah Moen; Stella A V Nieuwenburg; Eline H Schreuders; Ernst J Kuipers; Manon C W Spaander
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2021-12-14

6.  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

7.  Patient experience of gastrointestinal endoscopy: informing the development of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™.

Authors:  Laura J Neilson; Joanne Patterson; Christian von Wagner; Paul Hewitson; Lesley M McGregor; Linda Sharp; Colin J Rees
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-01-13

Review 8.  Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.

Authors:  Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Davide Bellini; David Burling; Giovanni Cappello; Cristina Carretero; Evelien Dekker; Rami Eliakim; Margriet de Haan; Michal F Kaminski; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Andrea Laghi; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Sebastian Manuel Milluzzo; Martina Morrin; Deirdre McNamara; Emanuele Neri; Silvia Pecere; Mathieu Pioche; Andrew Plumb; Emanuele Rondonotti; Manon Cw Spaander; Stuart Taylor; Ignacio Fernandez-Urien; Jeanin E van Hooft; Jaap Stoker; Daniele Regge
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  Artificial intelligence for the detection of polyps or cancer with colon capsule endoscopy.

Authors:  Alexander R Robertson; Santi Segui; Hagen Wenzek; Anastasios Koulaouzidis
Journal:  Ther Adv Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2021-06-13

Review 10.  Endorobots for Colonoscopy: Design Challenges and Available Technologies.

Authors:  Luigi Manfredi
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2021-07-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.