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.
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.