For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
24
views
10
references
 Top references
cited by
29
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      162
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A randomized controlled trial of an educational video to improve quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          High-quality bowel preparation is necessary for colonoscopy. A few studies have been conducted to investigate improvement in bowel preparation quality through patient education. However, the effect of patient education on bowel preparation has not been well studied.

          Methods

          A randomized and prospective study was conducted. All patients received regular instruction for bowel preparation during a pre-colonoscopy visit. Those scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to view an educational video instruction (video group) on the day before the colonoscopy, or to a non-video (control) group. Qualities of bowel preparation using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality scale (Ottawa score) were compared between the video and non-video groups. In addition, factors associated with poor bowel preparation were investigated.

          Result

          A total of 502 patients were randomized, 250 to the video group and 252 to the non-video group. The video group exhibited better bowel preparation (mean Ottawa total score: 3.03 ± 1.9) than the non-video group (4.21 ± 1.9; P < 0.001) and had good bowel preparation for colonoscopy (total Ottawa score <6: 91.6 % vs. 78.5 %; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that males (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95, P = 0.029), diabetes mellitus patients (OR = 2.79, P = 0.021), and non-use of visual aids (OR = 3.09, P < 0.001) were associated with poor bowel preparation. In the comparison of the colonoscopic outcomes between groups, the polyp detection rate was not significantly different between video group and non-video group (48/250, 19.2 % vs. 48/252, 19.0 %; P = 0.963), but insertion time was significantly short in video group (5.5 ± 3.2 min) than non-video group (6.1 ± 3.7 min; P = 0.043).

          Conclusion

          The addition of an educational video could improve the quality of bowel preparation in comparison with standard preparation method.

          Trial registration

          Clinical Research Information Service KCT0001836. The date of registration: March, 08 th, 2016, Retrospectively registered.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-016-0476-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality.

          Alaa Rostom, Emilie Jolicoeur (2004)
          Bowel preparation quality scales are used to document the superiority of one preparation regime vs. another. The validity and reliability of these scales are not routinely stated in reports of studies in which the scales are used. A new colonoscopy bowel preparation scale (the Ottawa bowel preparation scale) was developed and validated prospectively. Ninety-seven consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were entered into the study. The quality of the bowel preparation was assessed independently by two investigators who used the Ottawa scale, and the only other validated scale (Aronchick scale) that could be identified. The interobserver agreement and reliability of each scale was assessed by the Pearson correlation coefficient (r), the intraclass correlation coefficient, and regression analysis. The Pearson correlation coefficients were, respectively, 0.89 and 0.62 for the Ottawa and Aronchick scales (p<0.001). The values for the kappa statistic, an intraclass correlation coefficient measuring agreement over and above chance agreement, were, respectively, 0.94 and 0.77 (p<0.001). Linear regression analysis, mapping the line best describing the scatter of scores by raters, for the Ottawa scale revealed a slope of the line of 0.93 and a y intercept of 0.10. The Aronchick scale revealed a slope of 0.65 and a y intercept of 0.46. The Ottawa scale thus was closer to an identity line comparing raters (i.e., closer to a line with slope of 1.00 and y intercept of 0.00). The Ottawa scale demonstrated a right colon kappa (intraclass correlation coefficient) of 0.92: 95% CI[0.88, 0.95], a mid colon kappa (intraclass correlation coefficient) of 0.88: 95% CI[0.82, 0.92], and a rectosigmoid kappa (intraclass correlation coefficient) of 0.89: 95% CI[0.83, 0.92]. The Ottawa scale was validated prospectively and demonstrates high interobserver agreement and reliability, whether used as a total score or for individual colon segments.
          Article 0 comments Cited 118 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Appointment waiting times and education level influence the quality of bowel preparation in adult patients undergoing colonoscopy

            Wah Chan, Arjunan Saravanan, Jeeta Manikam … (2011)
            Background Risk factors for poor bowel preparation are recognized to be independent of the type of bowel preparation method used. Patient and administrative factors influencing bowel preparation are known to vary in different healthcare systems. Methods A prospective, cross-sectional study of patients undergoing colonoscopy in an Asian tertiary centre was conducted to identify risk factors associated with poor bowel preparation, and to evaluate the impact of poor bowel preparation on technical performance and patient comfort. Results Data on 501 patients (mean age 60.1 ± 14.0 years old, 51.2% males, 60.9% with secondary education or higher) was available for analysis. Poor bowel preparation was present in 151 patients (30.1%). Lower education level (OR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.54 - 3.60), colonoscopy appointment waiting time beyond 16 weeks (OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.04 - 3.37) and non-adherence to bowel preparation instructions (OR = 4.76, 95% CI = 3.00 - 7.55) were identified as independent risk factors for poor bowel preparation. Poor bowel preparation was associated with a lower cecal intubation rate (78.1% versus 98.3%, p < 0.001), prolonged total colonoscopy time (25.4 ± 12.6 minutes versus 16.7 ± 10.2 minutes, p < 0.001), and increased patient discomfort during colonoscopy (patient with moderate to severe abdominal discomfort 31.8% versus 3.2%, p < 0.001). Conclusions Education levels and appointment waiting times, in addition to non-adherence to bowel preparation instructions, increase the risk of poor bowel preparation in adult patients undergoing colonoscopy. The latter has a significant impact on colonoscopy performance and patient comfort.
            Article 0 comments Cited 40 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Evaluation of the Educational Value of YouTube Videos About Physical Examination of the Cardiovascular and Respiratory Systems

              Samy A Azer, Hala A AlGrain, Rana AlKhelaif … (2013)
              Background A number of studies have evaluated the educational contents of videos on YouTube. However, little analysis has been done on videos about physical examination. Objective This study aimed to analyze YouTube videos about physical examination of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. It was hypothesized that the educational standards of videos on YouTube would vary significantly. Methods During the period from November 2, 2011 to December 2, 2011, YouTube was searched by three assessors for videos covering the clinical examination of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. For each video, the following information was collected: title, authors, duration, number of viewers, and total number of days on YouTube. Using criteria comprising content, technical authority, and pedagogy parameters, videos were rated independently by three assessors and grouped into educationally useful and non-useful videos. Results A total of 1920 videos were screened. Only relevant videos covering the examination of adults in the English language were identified (n=56). Of these, 20 were found to be relevant to cardiovascular examinations and 36 to respiratory examinations. Further analysis revealed that 9 provided useful information on cardiovascular examinations and 7 on respiratory examinations: scoring mean 14.9 (SD 0.33) and mean 15.0 (SD 0.00), respectively. The other videos, 11 covering cardiovascular and 29 on respiratory examinations, were not useful educationally, scoring mean 11.1 (SD 1.08) and mean 11.2 (SD 1.29), respectively. The differences between these two categories were significant (P .86. Conclusions A small number of videos about physical examination of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems were identified as educationally useful; these videos can be used by medical students for independent learning and by clinical teachers as learning resources. The scoring system utilized by this study is simple, easy to apply, and could be used by other researchers on similar topics.
              Article 0 comments Cited 40 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                HyungKil Kim: +82-32-890-2548 , +82-32-890-2549 , Kimhg@inha.ac.kr
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Gastroenterol
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Gastroenterol
                Title: BMC Gastroenterology
                Publisher: BioMed Central (London )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1471-230X
                Publication date (Electronic): 17 June 2016
                Publication date PMC-release: 17 June 2016
                Publication date Collection: 2016
                Volume: 16
                Electronic Location Identifier: 64
                Affiliations
                Digestive Disease Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Inha University School of Medicine, 27 Inhang-ro, Jung-gu, Incheon, 400-711 South Korea
                Article
                Publisher ID: 476
                DOI: 10.1186/s12876-016-0476-6
                PMC ID: 4912707
                PubMed ID: 27317249
                SO-VID: 8203a000-4d00-409d-ad26-f7e2864d40e8
                Copyright © © The Author(s). 2016
                License:

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                Date received : 21 August 2015
                Date accepted : 1 June 2016
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © The Author(s) 2016

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                Keywords: bowel preparation,colonoscopy,video
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                Keywords: bowel preparation, colonoscopy, video

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content162

                See all similar

                Cited by29

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors116

                See all reference authors