Dataset Information

Educating Outpatients for Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy Using Conventional Methods vs Virtual Reality Videos Plus Conventional Methods: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Adequate bowel preparation is essential for diagnostic, screening, and surveillance colonoscopy. Virtual reality (VR) has the characteristics of immersion, interaction, and imagination and has been widely used in medicine for training and teaching, indicating that it could be used in the education of outpatients for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Objective

To investigate whether using VR videos for patient education before colonoscopy could improve bowel preparation.

Design, setting, and participants

A prospective, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial of 346 patients undergoing colonoscopy with local anesthesia in a tertiary care hospital was conducted between October 1, 2018, and November 1, 2020. Outpatients who had indications for colonoscopy and had not received one before were enrolled. Statistical analysis was performed from November 1 to December 31, 2020. All data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat approach.

Exposures

Conventional bowel preparation education (oral instructions and written materials that had the same contents) or conventional education plus VR videos.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the quality of bowel preparation measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (range, 0-9, where 0 indicates extremely unsatisfactory bowel preparation and 9 indicates complete bowel preparation). Secondary outcomes included polyp and adenoma detection rates, compliance with complete bowel cleansing, preprocedure anxiety, overall satisfaction, and willingness to undergo a follow-up colonoscopy.

Results

A total of 346 outpatients were enrolled in the trial, with 173 patients randomly assigned to each group (control group: 87 women [50.3%]; mean [SD] age, 50.5 [12.5] years; VR video group: 84 women [48.6%]; mean [SD] age, 52.6 [11.4] years). Baseline characteristics, including demographic information, medical history, lifestyle, and the characteristics of stool, were comparable between the VR video group and the control group. The mean (SD) Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was significantly higher in the VR video group than in the control group (7.61 [1.65] vs 7.04 [1.70]; P = .002). The detection rate of polyps (72 of 172 [41.9%] vs 46 of 172 [26.7%]; P = .003) and the detection rate of adenomas (56 of 172 [32.6%] vs 38 of 172 [22.1%]; P = .03) were also higher in the VR video group. Patients who received VR education had better compliance (119 [68.8%] vs 87 [50.3%]; P < .001) and higher mean (SD) overall satisfaction (8.68 [1.70] vs 8.16 [2.15]; P = .01) with bowel preparation.

Conclusions and relevance

Patients who received VR video education before colonoscopy had better bowel preparation, higher polyp and adenoma detection rates, and improved compliance and satisfaction.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03667911.

SUBMITTER: Chen G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8609410 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionColonoscopy is the reference method in screening and diagnosis of colorectal neoplasm, but its efficacy is closely related to the quality of bowel preparation. Poor patient compliance is a major risk factor for inadequate bowel preparation likely due to poor patient education. Such an education is usually provided via either oral or written instructions by clinicians. However, multiple education methods, such as smartphone applications, have been proved useful in aiding patients through bowel preparation. Also, it was reported that a large proportion of patients feel anxious before colonoscopy. Virtual reality (VR) is a novel method to educate patients and provides them with an immersive experience. Theoretically, it can make patients better prepared for bowel preparation and colonoscopy. However, no prospective studies have assessed the role of this novel technology in patient education before colonoscopy. We hypothesise that VR videos can improve bowel preparation quality and reduce pre-procedure anxiety.Methods/designThe trial is a prospective, randomised, single-blinded, single-centre trial. Outpatients who are scheduled to undergo colonoscopy for screening or diagnostic purposes for the first time will be randomised to receive either the conventional patient education or the conventional methods plus VR videos, and 322 patients will be enrolled from the Peking Union Medical College Hospital. The primary endpoint is the quality of bowel preparation, measured by the Boston bowel preparation score. Secondary endpoints include polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, patient compliance to complete bowel cleansing, withdrawal time, pre-procedure anxiety, overall satisfaction and willingness for the next colonoscopy.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the institutional review board of the Peking Union Medical College Hospital (No. ZS-1647). The results of this trial will be published in an open-access way and disseminated among gastrointestinal physicians and endoscopists.Trial registration numberNCT03667911.

Project description:BackgroundFor high-quality colonoscopies, adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite, closely associated with the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic safety of colonoscopy. Although popular-science short videos can help people quickly access health information, the overall quality of such short videos as a source of health information regarding bowel preparation before colonoscopy is unclear. Therefore, we intend to conduct a cross-sectional study to investigate the quality of bowel preparation information before colonoscopy through short videos taken on TikTok and Bilibili.MethodsThe Chinese phrases "colonoscopy" and "bowel preparation" were used as keywords to search for and screen the top 100 videos in the comprehensive rankings on TikTok and Bilibili. The Global Quality Score (GQS) and the modified DISCERN score were used to assess the quality of the information provided in these short videos.ResultsA total of 186 short videos were included in this study; 56.5% of them were posted by health professionals, whereas 43.5% of them were posted by nonhealth professionals. The overall quality of these videos was unsatisfactory, with a median DISCERN score of 3 (2-4) and a median GQS of 3 (3-4). The radar maps showed that videos posted by gastroenterologists had higher completeness scores regarding outcomes, management, and risk factors, while nongastroenterologists had higher completeness scores concerning adverse effects, symptoms, and definitions of bowel preparation. Additionally, the median DISCERN score and GQS of the videos posted by gastroenterologists were 3 (3-4) and 3 (3-4), respectively, whereas the quality of the videos posted by patients was the worst, with a median DISCERN score of 2 (1-2) and a median GQS of 2 (1.25-3).ConclusionIn conclusion, the overall quality of health information-related videos on bowel preparation before colonoscopy posted on specified short video platforms was not satisfactory. Gastroenterologists provide more information on the outcomes, management, and risk factors for bowel preparation before colonoscopy, while nongastroenterologists focus on adverse effects, symptoms, and definitions of bowel preparation.

Project description:AimTo compare magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy (MIC) with conventional colonoscopy (CC).MethodsMagnetic imaging technology provides a computer-generated image of the shape and position of the colonoscope onto a monitor to give visual guidance to the endoscopist. It is designed to improve colonoscopy performance and tolerability for patients by enabling visualization of loop formation and endoscope position. Recently, a new version of MIC technology was developed for which there are limited data.To evaluate this latest generation of MIC among experienced rather than inexperienced or trainee endoscopists, a prospective randomized trial was performed using only gastroenterologists with therapeutic endoscopy training. Consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to MIC or CC, with patients blinded to their group assignment. Endoscopic procedural metrics and quantities of conscious sedation medications were recorded during the procedures. The procedure was classified as "usual" or "difficult" by the endoscopist at the conclusion of each case based on the need for adjunctive maneuvers to facilitate endoscope advancement. After more than one hour post-procedure, patients completed a 10 cm visual analogue pain scale to reflect the degree of discomfort experienced during their colonoscopy. The primary outcome was patient comfort expressed by the visual analogue pain score. Secondary outcomes consisted of endoscopic procedural metrics as well as a sedation score derived from standardized dose increments of the conscious sedation medications.ResultsTwo hundred fifty-three patients were randomized and underwent MIC or CC between September 2011 and October 2012. The groups were similar in terms of the indications for colonoscopy and patient characteristics. There were no differences in cecal intubation rates (100% vs 99%), insertion distance-to-cecum (82 cm vs 83 cm), time-to-cecum (6.5 min vs 7.2 min), or polyp detection rate (47% vs 52%) between the MIC and CC groups. The primary outcome of mean pain score (1.0 vs 0.9 out of 10, P = 0.41) did not differ between MIC and CC groups, nor did the mean sedation score (8.2 vs 8.5, P = 0.34). Within the subgroup of cases considered more challenging or difficult, time-to-cecum was significantly faster with MIC compared to CC, 10.1 min vs 13.4 min respectively (P = 0.01). Sensitivity analyses confirmed a similar pattern of overall findings when each endoscopist was considered separately, demonstrating that the mean results for the entire group were not unduly influenced by outlier results from any one endoscopist.ConclusionAlthough the latest version of MIC resulted in faster times-to-cecum within a subgroup of more challenging cases, overall it was no better than CC in terms of patient comfort, sedation requirements and endoscopic procedural metrics, when performed in experienced hands.

Project description:BackgroundClinical guidelines recommend either a clear-liquid diet or a low-fiber diet for colonoscopy preparation. Participants in a screening program are usually motivated healthy individuals in which a good tolerability is important to improve adherence to potential surveillance colonoscopies.ObjectiveOur aim was to assess whether or not a normocaloric low-fiber diet followed the day before a screening colonoscopy compromises the efficacy of bowel cleansing and may improve the tolerability of bowel preparation.DesignThis is a randomized, endoscopist-blinded, noninferiority clinical trial.SettingsThe study was conducted at a tertiary care center.PatientsA total of 276 consecutive participants of the Barcelona colorectal cancer screening program were included.InterventionParticipants were randomly assigned to a clear-liquid diet or a normocaloric low-fiber diet the day before the colonoscopy. Both groups received 4 L of polyethylene glycol in a split-dose regimen.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the adequate bowel preparation rate measured with the Boston bowel preparation scale. Secondary outcomes included tolerability, fluid-intake perception, hunger, side effects, and acceptability.ResultsParticipants in both groups were similar in baseline characteristics. Adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 89.1% vs 95.7% in clear-liquid diet and low-fiber diet groups, showing not only noninferiority, but also superiority (p = 0.04). Low-fiber diet participants reported less fluid-intake perception (p = 0.04) and less hunger (p = 0.006), with no differences in bloating or nausea.LimitationsThe single-center design of the study could limit the external validity of the results. The present findings may not be comparable to other clinical settings.ConclusionA normocaloric low-fiber diet the day before a screening colonoscopy achieved better results than a clear-liquid diet in terms of adequate colon preparation. Moreover, it also improved the perception of hunger and excessive fluid intake. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02401802. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A829.