Effects of Telehealth Programme on Bowel Preparation Quality in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Randomised Controlled Trial
Keywords:
colonoscopy, quality of bowel preparation, telehealth programAbstract
Objective: To study the effects of a telehealth programme on the quality of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy
Design: A randomised controlled trial, post test-only control group design
Methodology: The subjects were patients aged over 18 years who received diagnostic colonoscopy. They were randomly assigned into experimental and control groups, 43 in each. The experimental group received a telehealth programme along with standard care, whereas the control group received only standard care. The research tools included the telehealth programme, developed based on empirical evidence and Roy’s adaptive theory framework. The data collection tools consisted of a personal data record form, the telehealth programme satisfaction questionnaire, and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), which was evaluated by an endoscopy specialist. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Chi-square Test, Fisher’s Exact test, and Mann-Whitney U Test.
Results: The majority of the experimental group members (86.1%) achieved the ‘highest cleanliness’ score on bowel preparation, compared with 65.1% in the control group. The experimental group’s mean bowel preparation score also was at the ‘highest cleanliness’ level ( = 8.33, SD = .97), significantly higher than the control group’s ‘high cleanliness’ level ( = 7.74, SD = 1.43, p < 0.05). Whereas no significant difference in satisfaction with bowel preparation was found between the experimental group ( = 9.59, SD = .74) and the control group ( = 9.58, SD = .93), the experimental group’s scores on overall and aspectual satisfaction with the programme were at the highest level ( = 4.66, SD = .43 for overall satisfaction; = 4.67, SD = .49 for the aspect of application convenience; = 4.69, SD = .44 for the aspect of information received; = 4.64, SD = .54 for the aspect of service coordination; = 4.77, SD = .44 for the aspect of programme use quality; and = 4.59, SD = .69 for the aspect of expenses).
Recommendations: Nurses should use this telehealth program to increase the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
Downloads
References
American Cancer Society. Colorectal cancer facts & figures 2020-2022. [Internet]: Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2020 [cite 2022 August 19]. Available form: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/colorectal-cancer-facts-and-figures/colorectal-cancer-facts-and-figures-2020-2022.pdf
Rutherford CC, Calderwood AH. Update on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Curr Treat Options Gastro 2018;16:165-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-018-0165-3
Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019;51(8):775-94. doi:10.1055/ a-0959-0505.
Millien VO, Mansour NM. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy in 2020: a Look at the past, present, and future. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2020;22(6):28. doi:10.1007/s11894-020-00764-4.
Chang JY, Moon CM, Lee HJ, et al. Predictive factors for missed adenoma on repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on initial colonoscopy: a KASID multicenter study. PLoS One 2018;13(4): e0195709. doi: 10.1371/journal.Pone. 0195709.
Gardezi SA, Tibbatts C. Improving bowel preparation for colonoscopy in a cost effective manner. BMJ Qual Improv Rep 2017; 6(1):u204560.w5376.doi: 10.1136/bmjquality. u204 560.w5376.
Kunnackal John G, Thuluvath AJ, Carrier H, Ahuja NK, Gupta E, Stein E. Poor health literacy and medication burden are significant predictors for inadequate bowel preparation in an urban tertiary care setting. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019;53 (9):e382-6. doi:10.1097/MCG.0000000000001177.
Hubers J, Sonnenberg A, Gopal D, Weiss J, Holobyn T, & Soni A.Trends in wait time for colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis 2013-2016. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2020; 11(1):e00113. doi:10. 14309/ctg.0000000000000113.
National Cancer Intitute.cororectal cancer screening. [cite,2020 November 21], Available https://www.nci.go.th/th/File_download/Nci%20Cancer%20Registry/Hospital-Based%202019%20NCI. pdf (in Thai)
Operating room Chulabhorn Hospital, patient undergoing colonoscopy.2020. [in Thai]
Ray-Offor E, Jebbin N. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation during colonoscopy in Nigerian patients. Cureus 2021;13(8):e17145. doi: 10.7759/ cureus.10.7759/cureus.17145
Lee J, Kim TO, Seo JW, et al. Shorter waiting times from education to colonoscopy can improve the quality of bowel preparation: A randomized controlled trial. Turk J Gastroenterol 2018;29(1):75-81. doi:10.5152/tjg.2018.17467.
Liu C, Song X, Hao H. Educational video followed by retelling bowel preparation process to improve colonoscopy bowel preparation quality: a prospective nursing intervention study. Med Sci Monit 2018;24: 6029–6037. doi:10.12659/MSM.909572.
Walter B, Frank R, Ludwig L, et al. Smartphone application to reinforce education increases hgh-quality preparation for colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies in a randomized trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;19(2):331-8.e5. doi:10.1016/j.cgh. 2020. 03.051.
Richter JM, Ha JB, Marx M, Campbell EJ, Pandolfi MC. A digital preprocedure instruction program for outpatient colonoscopy. Telemed J E Health 2020; 26(4):468-76. doi:10.1089/tmj.2019.0050.
Xu F, Lu S, Dong L, He Y, Li H,Tang J. Educational video on the WeChat Platform can effectively improve the quality of bowel preparation: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Gastroenterol nurs 2021 ; 44 : 47–51. doi: org.ejournal.mahidol.ac.th/ 10.1097/SGA. 0000000000000528.
Walter B, Klare P, Strehle K, et al. Improving the quality and acceptance of colonoscopy preparation byreinforced patient education with short message service: results from a randomized, multicenter study (PERICLES-II). Gastrointest Endosc 2019:89(3): 506-13.e4. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2018.08.014.
Wang SL, Wang Q, Yao J, et al. Effect of WeChat and short message service on bowel preparation: an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;31(2):170-7. doi:10.1097/meg.0000000000001303.
van der Zander QEW, Reumkens A, van de Valk B, Winkens B, Masclee AAM, de Ridder RJJ. Effects of a personalized Smartphone App on bowel preparation quality: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021;9(8):e26703. doi: 10.2196/26703.
Roy C. (2009). The Roy adaptation model. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education.
Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72(4):686-92. doi:10. 1016/j.gie.20 10.06.068.
Cho J, Lee S, Shin JA, Kim JH, Lee HS. The impact of patient education with a Smartphone Application on the quality of bowel preparation for screening colonoscopy. Clin Endosc 2017;50(5):479-85. doi:10.5946/ce.2017.025.
So H, Boo SJ, Seo H, et al. Patient descriptions of rectal effluents may help to predict the quality of bowel preparation with photographic examples. Intest Res 2015;13(2):153-159. doi:10.5217/ir.2015.13.2.153.
Amitay EL, Niedermaier T, Gies A, Hoffmeister M, Brenner H. Risk factors of inadequate bowel preparation for screening colonoscopy. J Clin Med 2021;10(12): 2740. doi:10.3390/jcm10122740.
El Bizri M, El Sheikh M, Lee GE, Sewitch MJ. Mobile health technologies supporting colonoscopy preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2021; 16(3):e0248679. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0248679.
Sharma P, Burke CA, Johnson DA, Cash BD. The importance of colonoscopy bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal lesions and colorectal cancer prevention. Endosc Int Open 2020;8(5):E673- E683. doi:10.1055/a-1127-3144.
Kim SY, Kim HS, Park HJ. Adverse events related to colonoscopy: global trends and future challenges. World J Gastroenterol 2019;25(2):190-204. doi:10.3748/wjg.v25.i2.190.
Chen G, Zhao Y, Xie F, et al. Educating outpatients for bowel preparation before colonoscopy using conventional methods vs virtual reality videos plus conventional methods: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4(11):e2135576. doi:10.10 01/jamanetworkopen.2021.35576.
Azzouz LL, Sharma, S.Physiology, Large Intestine. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.
Adike A, Buras MR, Gurudu SR, et al. Is the level of cleanliness using segmental Boston bowel preparation scale associated with a higher adenoma detection rate?. Ann Gastroenterol 2018;31(2):217-23. doi:10. 20524/aog.2018.0231
Gálvez M, Zarate AM, Espino H, Higuera-de la Tijera F, Awad RA, Camacho S. A short telephone-call reminder improves bowel preparation, quality indicators and patient satisfaction with first colonoscopy. Endosc Int Open 2017;5(12):E1172-e1178. doi:10.1055/s-0043-117954
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Thai Journal of Nursing Council
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
