Afterthoughts on colonoscopy. Was it that bad?

Self-adherence to post-colonoscopy consults in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy: Findings from a cross-sectional, quantitative survey at a South African quaternary hospital

Post-colonoscopy consults empower patients to make informed decisions around their subsequent treatment, and non-compliance with these consults ("no-shows") hinders disease management. There is a paucity in the literature regarding self-adherence to post-colonoscopy consults in resource-limited settings such as South Africa. An understanding of self-adherence to post-colonoscopy consults in this setting is required to establish whether improved interventions are needed, and what specific elements of self-adherence should be addressed with these interventions. The objective of this hypothesis-generating, cross-sectional, quantitative survey was to conduct a baseline assessment of cognitive, motivational, social, and behavioural variables related to self-adherence to post-colonoscopy consults in patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy at a South African quaternary hospital. The Adherence Determinants Questionnaire (ADQ) was administered in 47 patients to establish a baseline assessment of elements related to self-adherence to post-colonoscopy consults, including interpersonal aspects of care, perceived utility, severity, susceptibility, subjective norms, intentions, and supports/barriers. ADQ scores were transformed to a percentage of the maximum score for each element (100.0%). The overall mean transformed ADQ score was 57.8%. The mean transformed scores for specific ADQ components were as follows: subjective norms (40.8%), perceived severity (55.4%), perceived utility (56.6%), intentions (59.4%), supports/barriers (59.9%), interpersonal aspects (62.2%), and perceived susceptibility (65.9%). There were no statistically significant differences in overall mean transformed ADQ scores and individual ADQ elements across categories of participant age (p-values ranging between 0.180 and 0.949 when compared between participants ≤40 years and >40 years old), gender (p-values ranging between 0.071 and 0.946 when compared between males and females), and race (p-values ranging between 0.119 and 0.774 when compared between Black Africans and non-Black Africans). Our findings suggest a general need for appropriate interventions to improve self-adherence to post-colonoscopy consults in our setting.

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.

RESULTS

We screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.

CONCLUSION

Research on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

42020173906.

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

Patient experience is defined as a major quality indicator that should be routinely measured during and after a colonoscopy, according to current ESGE guidelines. There is no standard approach measuring patient experience after the procedure and the comparative performance of the different colonoscopy-specific patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) is unclear. Therefore, the aim was to develop a conceptual model describing how patients experience a colonoscopy, and to compare the model against colonoscopy-specific PREMs. A systematic search for qualitative research published up to December 2021 in PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO was conducted. After screening and quality assessment, data from 13 studies were synthesised using meta-ethnography. Similarities and differences between the model and colonoscopy-specific PREMs were identified. A model consisting of five concepts describes how patients experience undergoing a colonoscopy: health motivation, discomfort, information, a caring relationship, and understanding. These concepts were compared with existing PREMs and the result shows that there is agreement between the model and existing PREMs for colonoscopy in some parts, while partial agreement or no agreement is present in others. These findings suggest that new PREMs for colonoscopy should be developed, since none of the existing colonoscopy-specific PREMs fully cover patients’ experiences.

The unmet needs for identifying the ideal bowel preparation

Colonoscopy, since it was first employed over 60 years ago, is now the gold standard method for visualizing the mucosa of the colon, but should be of good quality. Many factors affect quality, including the type of health service organization, type of facility, staff, equipment, patient characteristics, and bowel preparation (BP). The adequacy of bowel cleansing is critical, but, unfortunately, may be inadequate in up to one‐third of procedures. The current article will present and discuss the main BPs and their drawbacks, which include patient‐dependent and procedure‐dependent factors. Cleansing quality depends on the ease/complexity of solution preparation, volume, taste, and timing of consumption. Consequently, important positive factors include simple instructions, easy preparation of the solution, low volume, pleasant taste, short drinking time (e.g. <30 min), and splitting the dose between the evening before and the morning of the colonoscopy (or even better, only one dose in the early morning to avoid night‐time problems), and short onset of action. The BP solution must also be safe with negligible side effects. Furthermore, a positive experience supports patient willingness to repeat the procedure.

Preference and Experience of Colonic Examination for Participants Presenting to Hospitals with a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test Result

PURPOSE

Patients who test positive on the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) are referred for colonoscopy for further diagnostic evaluation. Colonoscopy is not a perfect method and may be a challenge for some FIT-positive patients. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is an alternative method that is less invasive and allows examination of the whole colon. The study objective was to evaluate the preference of FIT-positive patients for either colonoscopy or CTC for CRC examination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Individuals older than 40 years with a positive FIT test at eight Japanese hospitals between December 2012 and July 2015 were invited to participate. Participants were given detailed information regarding colonoscopy and CTC before deciding on either examination. They completed questionnaires before the procedure regarding their preference and after the procedure regarding their experience.

RESULTS

The pre- and post-questionnaires of 846 and 834 participants, respectively, were analyzed. Participants preferred colonoscopy over CTC (colonoscopy, 72%; CTC, 28%). The possibility of obtaining biopsy samples and removing colorectal polyps during the procedure was the main reason for colonoscopy selection. Patients selected CTC to reduce discomfort but reported that CTC bowel preparation was more burdensome than colonoscopy bowel preparation. The overall experience of the examination did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy is the standard examination for FIT-positive patients. However, when given a choice, almost one-third of participants chose CTC because they thought it would be a more "comfortable" examination. Clinicians should therefore be aware of patients' potential preference for noninvasive colorectal examinations.