Literature DB >> 8455106

Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy: patient attitudes and compliance.

B D McCarthy1, M A Moskowitz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To measure patients' expectations and attitudes about screening flexible sigmoidoscopy and their discomfort during the procedure, and to identify factors affecting compliance among patients scheduled for sigmoidoscopy.
DESIGN: Patient survey at the time sigmoidoscopy was ordered and again one week after the procedure was performed.
SETTING: An academic general internal medicine practice. PATIENTS: 105 consecutive patients scheduled for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. MAIN
RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of patients (79/105) scheduled for sigmoidoscopy complied with the procedure. Compliance was higher among men and among patients who had family histories of colon cancer. Although many patients experienced moderate to extreme embarrassment (27%), discomfort (42%), and pain (31%), patients experienced less embarrassment (p = 0.03) and pain (p = 0.02) than they had expected. Patients aged 65 years and older were twice as likely as younger ones (52% versus 25%) to experience moderate to extreme pain (p = 0.04). Only 1.4% of patients reported that they would probably not have the test again.
CONCLUSION: Although flexible sigmoidoscopy is an uncomfortable procedure for some patients, especially those aged 65 and older, in general it is not as bad as patients expect and most would have the test again. Therefore, rather than assuming sigmoidoscopy is too uncomfortable for all patients to tolerate as a screening test, clinicians should inform their patients about the potential benefits and risks of sigmoidoscopy and about what the patient can expect during the procedure, thus enabling the patient to make an informed decision about whether to undergo screening sigmoidoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8455106     DOI: 10.1007/bf02599753

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  28 in total

1.  1989 survey of physicians' attitudes and practices in early cancer detection.

Authors: 
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  1990 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 2.  US Preventive Services Task Force. Sigmoidoscopy in the periodic health examination of asymptomatic adults.

Authors:  J V Selby; G D Friedman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1989-01-27       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy--the Monroe Clinic experience. A prospective study of 5000 examinations.

Authors:  D G Traul; C B Davis; J C Pollock; H H Scudamore
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 4.585

4.  Superiority of the flexible to the rigid sigmoidoscope in routine proctosigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  G Winnan; G Berci; J Panish; T M Talbot; B F Overholt; R W McCallum
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1980-05-01       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Short (35-cm) versus long (60-cm) flexible sigmoidoscopy: a comparison of findings and tolerance in asymptomatic patients screened for colorectal neoplasia.

Authors:  R A Dubow; R M Katon; K G Benner; C M van Dijk; G Koval; F W Smith
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  A community-based program of colorectal screening in an asymptomatic population: evaluation of screening tests and compliance.

Authors:  L Bat; A Pines; E Ron; Y Niv; E Arditi; E Shemesh
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Participation of high-risk subjects in colon cancer screening.

Authors:  R S Sandler; B M DeVellis; S J Blalock; K L Holland
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1989-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Fiberoptic pansigmoidoscopy. An evaluation and comparison with rigid sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  T W Bohlman; R M Katon; G R Lipshutz; M F McCool; F W Smith; C S Melnyk
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1977-04       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Feasibility of sigmoidoscopic screening for bowel cancer in a primary care setting.

Authors:  D L Hahn
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Pract       Date:  1989 Jan-Mar

Review 10.  Detection and surveillance of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  D E Fleischer; S B Goldberg; T H Browning; J N Cooper; E Friedman; F H Goldner; E B Keeffe; L E Smith
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1989-01-27       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  6 in total

1.  Screening sigmoidoscopy. Factors associated with utilization.

Authors:  S F Lewis; N M Jensen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Value of fentanyl in flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  Sanjoy Basu; Badri Krishnamurthy; Tim H Walsh
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Development Of An Educational Video To Improve Patient Knowledge And Communication With Their Healthcare Providers About Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Mira L Katz; Sarah Heaner; Paul Reiter; Julie van Putten; Lee Murray; Leon McDougle; Donald J Cegala; Douglas Post; Prabu David; Michael Slater; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  Am J Health Educ       Date:  2009-07

4.  Predictors of CT colonography utilization among asymptomatic medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Hanna M Zafar; Jianing Yang; Michael Harhay; Anna Lev-Toaff; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Colorectal cancer screening: what do women from diverse ethnic groups want?

Authors:  Judith M E Walsh; Sue E Kim; George Sawaya; Celia P Kaplan; Sabrina T Wong; Steve E Gregorich; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-09-12       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Gender differences in attitudes impeding colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Paul Ritvo; Ronald E Myers; Lawrence Paszat; Mardie Serenity; Daniel F Perez; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-05-24       Impact factor: 3.295

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.