Patient willingness for repeat screening and preference for CT colonography and optical colonoscopy in ACRIN 6664: the National CT Colonography trial

Acceptance and Preference of Computed Tomographic Colonography and Colonoscopy: Results of a Nationwide Multicenter Comparative Questionnaire Survey in Japan

Objectives

To investigate patient acceptance and preference for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) over colonoscopy.

Methods

Participants were recruited from a nationwide multicenter trial in Japan to assess the accuracy of CTC detection. They were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy after CTC with common bowel preparation on the same day. Some were administered sedative drugs during colonoscopy, depending on the referring clinician and participant's preferences. The participants were requested to complete a questionnaire to evaluate the acceptability of bowel preparation, examinations, and preference for future examinations.

Results

Of the 1,257 enrolled participants, 1,180 (mean age: 60.6 years; women: 43.3%) completed the questionnaire. Sedative drugs were not administered in 687 participants (unsedated colonoscopy group) and were administered intravenously during colonoscopy in 493 participants (sedated colonoscopy group). Before propensity score matching, the mean participants' age, percentages of asymptomatic participants, insufflation of gas during colonoscopy, and number of participants with a history of abdominal/pelvic operation significantly differed between the groups. After propensity score matching, 912 participants from each group were included in the analysis. In the unsedated colonoscopy group, CTC was answered as significantly easier than colonoscopy (p<0.001). Conversely, CTC was significantly more difficult than colonoscopy in the sedated colonoscopy group (p<0.001). In the unsedated colonoscopy group, 48% preferred CTC and 22% preferred colonoscopy for future examinations, whereas in the sedated colonoscopy group, 26% preferred CTC and 38% preferred colonoscopy (p<0.001).

Conclusions

CTC has superior participant acceptability compared with unsedated colonoscopy. However, our study did not observe the advantages of CTC acceptance over sedative colonoscopy.

Fostering Patient-Centered Equitable Care in Radiology: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Patient-centered care (PCC) and equity are two of the six core domains of quality health care, according to the Institute of Medicine. Exceptional imaging care requires radiology practices to provide patient-centered (i.e., respectful and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values) and equitable (i.e., does not vary in quality on the basis of gender, ethnicity, geographic location, or socioeconomic status) care. Specific barriers that prevent the delivery of patient-centered equitable care include information gaps, breaches of trust, organizational medical culture, and financial incentives. Information gaps limit practitioners in understanding the lived experience of patients. Breaches of trust prevent patients from seeking needed medical care. Organizational medical cultures may not be centered around patient experiences. Financial incentives can impede practitioners' ability to spend the time and resources required to meet patient goals and needs. Intentional approaches that integrate core principles in both PCC and health equity are required to deliver high-quality patient-centered imaging care for diverse patient populations. The purpose of this AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review is to review the origins of the PCC movement in radiology, characterize connections between the PCC and health equity movements, and describe concrete examples of ways to foster patient-centered equitable care in radiology.

Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults.

METHOD

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3^rd, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Have We Addressed Concerns and Needs of the Target Population?

Despite the recognized benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, uptake is still suboptimal in many countries. In addressing this issue, one important element that has not received sufficient attention is population preference. Our review provides a comprehensive summary of the up-to-date evidence relative to this topic. Four OVID databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, and Global Health. Among the 742 articles generated, 154 full texts were selected for a more thorough evaluation based on predefined inclusion criteria. Finally, 83 studies were included in our review. The general population preferred either colonoscopy as the most accurate test, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as the least invasive for CRC screening. The emerging blood test (SEPT9) and capsule colonoscopy (nanopill), with the potential to overcome the pitfalls of the available techniques, were also favored. Gender, age, race, screening experience, education and beliefs, the perceived risk of CRC, insurance, and health status influence one’s test preference. To improve uptake, CRC screening programs should consider offering test alternatives and tailoring the content and delivery of screening information to the public’s preferences. Other logistical measures in terms of the types of bowel preparation, gender of endoscopist, stool collection device, and reward for participants can also be useful.

Gender, having a positive FIT and type of hospital are important factors for colonoscopy experience in colorectal cancer screening - findings from the SCREESCO study

OBJECTIVES

Assessing the experience of screening procedures is crucial for improving the quality and acceptance of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. The aim of the study was to investigate the colonoscopy experience and associated factors among individuals who underwent a colonoscopy in the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) study.

METHODS

Participants in the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO; n = 7593) randomized clinical trial (colonoscopy vs. faecal immunochemical test (FIT)) were enrolled. The primary outcome was overall colonoscopy experience measured with a study-specific questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were measured using multiple regression analyses with factors that included sex, randomization group, geographical regions, university hospital, complications, sedation, clean bowel, time to cecum, and presence of polyps or cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 6572 (87%) individuals responded to the questionnaire. The majority was satisfied with the information, care and treatment. Women reported more worry, discomfort and pain, but also better information, care and treatment compared with men. The FIT group was more worried and perceived more discomfort and pain than the colonoscopy group. Type of hospital (geographical region; university hospital vs. not university hospital) was also a significant predictor for the colonoscopy experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most participants were satisfied with the colonoscopy experience, the study has highlighted areas for improvement. Important factors for colonoscopy experience were gender, randomization group, and type of hospital and therefore crucial to bear in mind when designing screening programs.

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

BACKGROUND

Measuring patient experience is important for evaluating the quality of patient care, identifying aspects requiring improvement and optimising patient outcomes. Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) should, ideally, be patient derived, however no such PREMs for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy exist. This study explored the experiences of patients undergoing GI endoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) in order to: identify aspects of care important to them; determine whether the same themes are relevant across investigative modalities; develop the framework for a GI endoscopy PREM.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years who had undergone oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD), colonoscopy or CTC for symptoms or surveillance (but not within the national bowel cancer screening programme) in one hospital were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Recruitment continued until data saturation. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

35 patients were interviewed (15 OGD, 10 colonoscopy, 10 CTC). Most patients described their experience chronologically, and five 'procedural stages' were evident: before attending for the test; preparing for the test; at the hospital, before the test; during the test; after the test. Six themes were identified: anxiety; expectations; choice & control; communication & information; comfort; embarrassment & dignity. These were present for all three procedures but not all procedure stages. Some themes were inter-related (eg, expectations & anxiety; communication & anxiety).

CONCLUSION

We identified six key themes encapsulating patient experience of GI procedures and these themes were evident for all procedures and across multiple procedure stages. These findings will be used to inform the development of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™.

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.

Patient Knowledge Regarding Colorectal Cancer Risk, Opinion of Screening, and Preferences for a Screening Test

AIMS

To assess patient knowledge about colorectal cancer incidence and prognosis as well as willingness to undergo screening with various tests (eg, optical colonoscopy, stool-based tests, computed tomographic colonography (CTC)).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey was administered to consecutive patients of a general academic-based internal medicine clinic.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was 86.3%. A majority of respondents (55%) reported being aware of general information about colorectal cancer, and 99% indicated a belief that colorectal cancer screening was a good idea. A majority of respondents (73%) were willing to undergo optical colonoscopy, and some were willing to undergo stool-based tests (48%), or CT colonography CTC (40%). A majority reported being more willing to undergo a colorectal cancer screening test if the test did not involve radiation (86%), did not involve insertion of a tube or device into the rectum (78%), did not involve a pre-proceduralpreprocedural bowel cleansing regimen (73%), or did not involve sedation (60%).

CONCLUSION

Improved patient education about the negligible radiation risk associated with CTC or development of a non-invasive imaging test that did not involve a preprocedural bowel cleansing regimen may increase rates of colorectal cancer screening.

A systematic review of questionnaires about patient's values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate questionnaires about patient's values and preferences to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires to be used when developing clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang Database was performed to identify studies on questionnaires evaluating patient's values and preferences. The articles that used fully structured questionnaires or scales with standardized questions and answer options were included. We assessed the questionnaires' construction and content with a psychometric methodology and summarized the domains and items about patient's preferences and values.

RESULTS

A total of 7,008 records were retrieved by the search strategy and scanned, and 20 articles were finally included. Of these, 10 (50%) articles described the process of item generation and only four questionnaires (20%, 4/20) mentioned the pilot testing. Regarding "validity", seven questionnaires (35%, 7/20) assessed validity and only one (5%, 1/20) questionnaire assessed internal consistency, with Cornbrash's α values of 0.74-0.87. For "acceptability", the time to complete the questionnaires ranged from 10 to 30 minutes and only nine studies (45%, 9/20) reported the response rates. In addition, the results of domains and items about patient's preferences and values showed that the "effectiveness" domain was the most considered item in the patient's value questionnaire followed by "safety", "prognosis", and others, whereas the least considered domain was "physician's experience".

CONCLUSION

Only a few studies have developed questionnaires with rigorous psychometric methods to measure patient's preferences and values. Currently, still there is no valid or reliable questionnaire for patient's preferences and values for use when developing clinical practice guidelines. Further study should be conducted to develop standardized instruments to measure patient's preferences and values. This study provides the domains and items that may be used in formulating questionnaires about patient's preferences and values.