Smartphone Application Versus Standard Instruction for Colonoscopic Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Journal of clinical gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-03-15 DOI:10.1097/MCG.0000000000001988
Sunil V Patel, David Yu, Connie Taylor, Jackie McKay, Lawrence Hookey
{"title":"Smartphone Application Versus Standard Instruction for Colonoscopic Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Sunil V Patel, David Yu, Connie Taylor, Jackie McKay, Lawrence Hookey","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000001988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare smartphone application (Colonoscopic Preparation) instructions versus paper instructions for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Adhering to bowel preparation instructions is important to ensure a high-quality colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This randomized controlled trial included individuals undergoing colonoscopy at a tertiary care hospital. Individuals were randomized (1:1) to receive instructions through a smartphone application or traditional paper instructions. The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation as measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Score. Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation and polyp detection. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a previously developed questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 238 individuals were randomized (n = 119 in each group), with 202 available for the intention-to-treat analysis (N = 97 in the app group and 105 in the paper group). The groups had similar demographics, indications for colonoscopy, and type of bowel preparation. The primary outcome (Boston Bowel Preparation Score) demonstrated no difference between groups (Colonoscopic Preparation app mean: 7.26 vs paper mean: 7.28, P = 0.91). There was no difference in cecal intubation (P = 0.37), at least one polyp detected (P = 0.43), or the mean number of polyps removed (P = 0.11). A higher proportion strongly agreed or agreed that they would use the smartphone app compared with paper instructions (89.4% vs 70.1%, P = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Smartphone instructions performed similarly to traditional paper instructions for those willing to use the application. Local patient preferences need to be considered before making changes in the method of delivery of medical instructions.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001988","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare smartphone application (Colonoscopic Preparation) instructions versus paper instructions for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Adhering to bowel preparation instructions is important to ensure a high-quality colonoscopy.

Patients and methods: This randomized controlled trial included individuals undergoing colonoscopy at a tertiary care hospital. Individuals were randomized (1:1) to receive instructions through a smartphone application or traditional paper instructions. The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation as measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Score. Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation and polyp detection. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a previously developed questionnaire.

Results: A total of 238 individuals were randomized (n = 119 in each group), with 202 available for the intention-to-treat analysis (N = 97 in the app group and 105 in the paper group). The groups had similar demographics, indications for colonoscopy, and type of bowel preparation. The primary outcome (Boston Bowel Preparation Score) demonstrated no difference between groups (Colonoscopic Preparation app mean: 7.26 vs paper mean: 7.28, P = 0.91). There was no difference in cecal intubation (P = 0.37), at least one polyp detected (P = 0.43), or the mean number of polyps removed (P = 0.11). A higher proportion strongly agreed or agreed that they would use the smartphone app compared with paper instructions (89.4% vs 70.1%, P = 0.001).

Conclusions: Smartphone instructions performed similarly to traditional paper instructions for those willing to use the application. Local patient preferences need to be considered before making changes in the method of delivery of medical instructions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结肠镜检查准备的智能手机应用与标准指导:随机对照试验
目的:比较智能手机应用(结肠镜检查准备)说明书与结肠镜检查肠道准备纸质说明书:比较智能手机应用程序(结肠镜检查准备)与结肠镜检查肠道准备纸质说明书:背景:遵守肠道准备说明对于确保结肠镜检查的高质量非常重要:这项随机对照试验包括在一家三级医院接受结肠镜检查的患者。患者被随机(1:1)分配到通过智能手机应用程序或传统纸质说明书接受指导。主要结果是以波士顿肠道准备评分来衡量肠道准备的质量。次要结果包括盲肠插管和息肉检测。患者满意度采用之前开发的问卷进行评估:共有 238 人接受了随机治疗(每组 119 人),其中 202 人接受了意向治疗分析(应用程序组 97 人,纸张组 105 人)。两组的人口统计学特征、结肠镜检查适应症和肠道准备类型相似。主要结果(波士顿肠道准备评分)显示组间无差异(结肠镜准备应用平均值:7.26 vs 纸质平均值:7.28,P = 0.91)。在盲肠插管(P = 0.37)、至少发现一个息肉(P = 0.43)或切除息肉的平均数量(P = 0.11)方面没有差异。与纸质说明书相比,强烈同意或同意使用智能手机应用程序的比例更高(89.4% vs 70.1%,P = 0.001):结论:对于愿意使用应用程序的人来说,智能手机说明书与传统纸质说明书的效果类似。在改变医疗指导方法之前,需要考虑当地患者的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Impact of High-dose Esomeprazole-amoxicillin Dual Therapy as Rescue Treatment for Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Trial. Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Liver Cirrhosis. Prevalence and Pathophysiology of Loose Stools and Their Impact on Clinical Severity and Quality of Life in Women With Fecal Incontinence. Brain Fog in Gastrointestinal Disorders: Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth, Gastroparesis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Strategies, Technologies, and Tips for Successful Cecal Intubation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1