Effect of Sending Educational Video Clips via Smartphone Mobile Messenger on Bowel Preparation before Colonoscopy

Sung Chan Jeon; Jae Hyun Kim; Sun Jung Kim; Hye Jung Kwon; Youn Jung Choi; Kyoungwon Jung; Sung Eun Kim; Won Moon; Moo In Park; Seun Ja Park

doi:10.5946/ce.2018.072

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 52(1); 2019 > Article

Original Article Effect of Sending Educational Video Clips via Smartphone Mobile Messenger on Bowel Preparation before Colonoscopy: Sung Chan Jeon^,*, Jae Hyun Kim^,*, Sun Jung Kim, Hye Jung Kwon, Youn Jung Choi, Kyoungwon Jung, Sung Eun Kim, Won Moon, Moo In Park, Seun Ja Park^,; Clinical Endoscopy 2019;52(1):53-58.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2018.072
Published online: August 29, 2018

Department of Gastroenterology, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea

Correspondence: Seun Ja Park Department of Gastroenterology, Kosin University College of Medicine, 262 Gamcheon-ro, Seo-gu, Busan 49267, Korea Tel: +82-51-990-5061, Fax: +82-51-990-5055, E-mail: parksj6406@daum.net

*Sung Chan Jeon and Jae Hyun Kim contributed equally to this article.

• Received: April 26, 2018 • Revised: June 1, 2018 • Accepted: June 2, 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

7,209 Views
228 Download
28 Web of Science
28 Crossref
27 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
NOTES
REFERENCES

See letter "How Can We Achieve Good Compliance for Bowel Preparation?" in Volume 52 on page 3.

Abstract

Background/Aim
We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of sending educational video clips via smartphone mobile messenger (SMM) on enhancing bowel preparation before colonoscopy.
Methods
This was a prospective, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled study. Patients in the SMM group received two video clips sent via SMM that explained the diet and regimen for bowel preparation, whereas those in the control group did not receive any video clips. We compared the quality of bowel preparation between the two groups, which was assessed by an endoscopist using the Ottawa scale.
Results
Between August and November 2014, 140 patients in the SMM group and 141 patients in the control group underwent colonoscopic examination. The total Ottawa score of the SMM group was significantly lower than that of the control group (5.47±1.74 vs. 5.97±1.78, p=0.018). These results were particularly prominent in the younger age group; the total Ottawa score of patents in the SMM group aged <40 years was significantly lower than that of patients in the control group aged <40 years (5.10±1.55 vs. 6.22±2.33, p=0.034).
Conclusions
We demonstrated that sending educational video clips via SMM could result in better bowel preparation, especially in the younger age group.
Keywords: Colonoscopy; Bowel preparation; Education

Introduction

Colonoscopy is an important tool in the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal disease, and it should be preceded by adequate pretreatment in order to facilitate safe and effective testing [1]. However, bowel preparation is inadequate for up to one-third of all colonoscopies in daily clinical practice [2-4]. Inadequate bowel preparation can increase the risk of missed lesions, risk of complications following the procedure, procedure time, and need to re-perform colonoscopic examination [5]. Adequate bowel preparation is closely linked to patient compliance, such as whether the patient used the appropriate administration method or had a low-residue diet [2]. To improve patient compliance, it may be helpful to enhance patient education on the importance of colonic cleansing before colonoscopy. Recently, several studies have reinforced the need for patient education on colonic cleansing prior to colonoscopy using a variety of methods, including cartoons, video clips, intensive education, or telephone-based re-education [6-9]. These studies showed that such educational methods may increase the quality of bowel preparation from 11.3% to 32.6%; however, many patients still do not achieve adequate bowel preparation. Therefore, further studies are needed to increase the effectiveness of patients’ pre-colonoscopy colonic cleansing.

Since the launch of the iPhone (Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) in 2007, smartphone usage has risen remarkably worldwide. In Korea, the smartphone penetration rate is about 80%, and mobile messenger usage among smartphone users is up to 90%. Among various mobile messenger applications, KakaoTalk (Kakao Co., Seoul, Korea) is used the most in Korea and has the advantage of easily transferring pictures and videos via messenger. In this study, we hypothesized that sending educational video clips via smartphone mobile messenger (SMM, KakaoTalk) could be a useful tool to improve the quality of colonic cleansing before colonoscopy owing to the ease of transferring photos and videos to others and the capacity to view them repeatedly at any time. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of sending educational video clips on colonic cleansing before colonoscopy via SMM and to assess whether it could be applied in clinical practice.

Materials and Methods

Patients

This is a prospective, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled study. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Kosin University Gospel Hospital (KUGH 2014-07-074). Patients aged >30 years who were undergoing screening colonoscopy at the health examination center of Kosin University Gospel Hospital in Korea were enrolled. Patients with a history of abdominal surgery, inflammatory bowel disease, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, ascites, ileus or intestinal obstruction, or allergy to bowel preparation drugs and those who were pregnant were excluded. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before enrollment in this study. All patients listened to explanations about the study purpose given by a well-trained nurse in the health examination center. The nurse provided education with an informational brochure on colonoscopy, which included the diet schedule (low-fiber diet for three days and soft diet for dinner the day before the colonoscopy), administration method of the bowel preparation regimen, process of colonoscopic examination, and side effects of the regimen. Then, subjects were randomized to either the SMM or control group using the table of random numbers. Patients in the SMM group received two video clips sent via KakaoTalk, whereas those in the control group did not receive any video clips.

Creation of the video clips

A study investigator (SCJ) created two video clips introducing the diet and regimen for colonic cleansing before colonoscopy. The first video clip introduced the diet for colonic cleansing before colonoscopy. In this video clip, a low-fiber diet for three days and soft diet for dinner the day before the colonoscopy were recommended, and foods to avoid including watermelon, oriental melon, grape, nut products, kimchi, vegetables, and seaweed were emphasized. The second video clip introduced the regimen for bowel preparation. This video clip explained the detailed preparation method of the polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder (PEG-ELP), which involved drinking 500 mL water after consuming 1 L PEG-ELP between 9:00 and 11:00 p.m. on the day before colonoscopy and drinking an additional 500 mL water after consuming 1 L PEG-ELP between 5:00 and 7:00 a.m. on the day of the colonoscopy. Each video clip was approximately 2-min long.

Data collection and colonoscopy

On the day of the colonoscopy, all patients were interviewed by a study investigator (SCJ), and they filled out a questionnaire on aspects such as the viewing of each video, types of food consumed, start time of initial bowel preparation, time of final bowel preparation, and last stool color. Patient compliance was assessed as good or bad based on the food types consumed and time of bowel preparation. Side effects were categorized as mild, moderate, or severe. Colonoscopic examinations were performed by one experienced endoscopist (SJK) who was blinded to the group information. All colonoscopic examinations were performed between 09:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m. During the examination, insertion time, withdrawal time, polyp detection, and bowel preparation scale were recorded. The bowel preparation scale was assessed according to the Ottawa bowel preparation scale [10], with a score of 0-4 for the rectosigmoid, middle, and right colon and 0-2 for quantity of residual fluid. The total score was calculated by summing all scores. The scale ranges from 0 (perfect) to 14 (inadequate). When a polyp was detected during colonoscopic examination, biopsy and histologic assessments were performed to identify the adenoma component. Then, the polyp detection rate (PDR) (the number of colonoscopies in which one or more polyps were detected divided by the total number of colonoscopies) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) (the number of colonoscopies in which one or more adenomas were detected divided by the total number of colonoscopies) were assessed.

Endpoints

The primary endpoint in this study was the quality of the bowel preparation, which was assessed by the endoscopist using the Ottawa scale. Adequate bowel preparation was defined as an Ottawa score of <6 at the time of colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were colonoscopic insertion and withdrawal time, PDR, ADR, side effects during bowel preparation, and rate of sleep disturbance due to bowel preparation. Severe side effects were defined as ≥10 nausea/vomiting episodes or intolerable abdominal pain/discomfort.

Statistical analysis

The number of patients in each group was calculated with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.8, assuming a 12% difference in the rate of colonic cleansing based on previous studies. Accounting for a dropout rate of 10%, at least 153 subjects in each group were needed for the study. Continuous data with normal distributions are expressed as mean±standard deviation, and categorical data are presented as the number of subjects (%). Student’s t-test and the chi-square test were performed for continuous and categorical variables, as appropriate. To analyze the factors associated with adequate bowel preparation, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. P-values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Patient characteristics

Between August and November 2014, 306 patients signed written informed consent forms and were randomized to the SMM and control groups. After randomization, 25 patients cancelled appointments and did not undergo colonoscopy. Finally, 140 patients from the SMM group and 141 patients from the control group underwent colonoscopic examination. The patient selection flowchart is presented in Fig. 1. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The mean age of all participants was 48.3±9.9 years, and 161 (57.3%) patients were men. Patients in the SMM group were significantly younger and had lower body mass index (BMI). All participants performed bowel preparation with PEG-ELP.

Endpoints

As shown in Table 2, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the assessment of patient compliance, status of last defecation after bowel preparation, and adequate bowel preparation according to the Ottawa score (<6). In the SMM group, the odds ratio predicting adequate bowel preparation (Ottawa score <6) was 1.39 (95% confidence interval, 0.87–2.22; p=0.171). The result did not change appreciably after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, and previous experience of colonoscopy. However, the total Ottawa score was significantly lower in the SMM group than in the control group (5.47±1.74 vs. 5.97±1.78, p=0.018). In particular, the Ottawa scores for the right and middle colon were significantly lower in the SMM group than in the control group (right colon, 1.99±0.59 vs. 2.12±0.52, p=0.035; middle colon, 1.48±0.67 vs. 1.67±0.64, p=0.013). These results were particularly prominent in the younger age group; the total Ottawa score of patients in the SMM group aged <40 years was significantly lower than that of patients in the control group aged <40 years (5.10±1.55 vs. 6.22±2.33; p=0.034, Table 3). However, these differences between the two groups were not significant in patients aged >40 years. Under 40 years of age, the patient compliance was significantly better in the SMM group than in the control group (data not shown). Between the two groups, the differences in cecal intubation time, severe symptoms during bowel preparation, and sleep disturbances were not significant, whereas the withdrawal time was longer in the control group than in the SMM group, and PDR and ADR were higher in the control group than in the SMM group (Table 4).

Discussion

In this prospective, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled study, we evaluated the efficacy of sending educational video clips via SMM on facilitating bowel preparation. Upon analyzing the results, we found that sending educational video clips via SMM may result in better bowel preparation, especially in the right and middle colon. In addition, we identified that this educational method could be especially helpful to patients in the younger age group.

Adequate bowel preparation is an important factor for achieving an efficient colonoscopic examination. The quality of bowel preparation is associated with both the cecal intubation rate and PDR, which are key quality indicators in colonoscopy [10,11], whereas inadequate bowel preparation can result in an increased number of missed lesions and complication rates, as well as unnecessary costs when the examination has to be re-scheduled [12,13]. Several studies on bowel preparation education before colonoscopy have recently been reported, and they indicated that educating patients with various methods could effectively improve bowel preparation for colonoscopy [6,8,14-17]. In our study, we investigated whether sending educational video clips on bowel preparation before colonoscopy via SMM, an easy way to send photos and videos to participants that is used by most people in Korea, enhances the quality of pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation.

We defined the cut-off for adequate bowel preparation as an Ottawa score of 6 or less and evaluated the difference between the SMM and control groups in the assessment of adequate bowel preparation according to the Ottawa score (<6). The percentage of patients with an Ottawa score of <6 was higher in the SMM group than in the control group (50.7% vs. 42.6%), although the difference was not statistically significant. In comparison to the total Ottawa score, bowel preparation was significantly better in the SMM group than in the control group. These results suggest that sending educational video clips via SMM may be a helpful tool for optimizing bowel preparation before colonoscopy. In addition, the total Ottawa score of patients aged <40 years was significantly lower in the SMM group than in the control group. This may be because younger people use their smartphones more often and more adeptly compared to older people, which suggests that this approach using SMM may be more useful for younger patients. In our study, sending educational video clips via SMM was not helpful in improving bowel preparation in patients aged >40 years.

Adequate bowel preparation can be expected to increase PDR and ADR during colonoscopy. However, several recent studies reported that PDR and ADR are not closely related to the quality of bowel preparation [18-20]. In our study, PDR and ADR were significantly lower in the SMM group than in the control group. Older age (49.9±9.6 years vs. 46.7±9.9 years) and longer withdrawal time during colonoscopy (10.9±2.2 min vs. 10.2±2.3 min) in the control group than in the SMM group may have influenced these results. The incidence of severe side effects during bowel preparation including nausea/vomiting and abdominal pain/discomfort did not significantly differ between the SMM and control groups. In addition, sleep disturbances were not significantly different between the two groups.

This study has some limitations. First, age and BMI were quite different between the two groups, although this was a randomized controlled study. The age and BMI of the patients were significantly higher in the control group than in the SMM group. These differences might have affected the bowel preparation results as well as the PDR and ADR. Second, we checked the number of views among patients in the SMM group, and they were expected to have thoroughly viewed the video clips. However, we could not confirm whether they had in fact carefully viewed the video clips, which potentially constrains the assessment of impact and the feasibility of sending video clips via SMM. Third, these results may be difficult to generalize because this study was performed in a single medical center.

In conclusion, this randomized controlled study showed that sending educational video clips via SMM improved the quality of bowel preparation, especially in the younger age group. Although further longitudinal studies will be needed to clarify the usefulness of video clips sent via SMM in optimizing bowel preparation, we expect that using a smartphone messenger service could be a helpful tool to facilitate safer and more effective colonoscopies.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

Fig. 1.

Flowchart of the study.

Table 1.

Baseline Characteristics

	SMM group (n=140)	Control group (n=141)	p-value
Age (yr)	46.7±9.9	49.9±9.6	0.006
Sex			0.959
Male	80 (57.1)	81 (57.4)
Female	60 (42.9)	60 (42.6)
BMI (kg/m²)	23.5±3.0	24.5±3.1	0.009
Previous experience of colonoscopy			0.257
No	67 (47.9)	58 (41.1)
Yes	73 (52.1)	83 (58.9)
Bowel preparation type			1.000
PEG-ELP	140	141
Others	0	0

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or n (%).

SMM, smartphone mobile messenger; BMI, body mass index; PEG-ELP, polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder.

Table 2.

Bowel Preparation Outcomes

	SMM group (n=140)	Control group (n=141)	p-value
Compliance			0.069
Good	136 (97.1)	129 (91.5)
Bad	4 (2.9)	12 (8.5)
Last defecation after bowel preparation			0.121
Clear, no residue	30 (21.4)	20 (14.2)
Yellow residue	110 (78.6)	121 (85.8)
Ottawa score	5.47±1.74	5.97±1.78	0.018
Right	1.99±0.59	2.13±0.52	0.035
Middle	1.48±0.67	1.67±0.64	0.013
Rectosigmoid	1.23±0.55	1.27±0.56	0.538
Fluid	0.77±0.63	0.89±0.66	0.113
Adequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy (Ottawa score <6)	71 (50.7)	60 (42.6)	0.170

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or n (%).

SMM, smartphone mobile messenger.

Table 3.

Bowel Preparation Outcomes according to Age Group

	SMM group (n=140)	Control group (n=141)	p-value
Under 40 yr (n=66)	(n=39)	(n=27)
Ottawa score	5.10±1.55	6.22±2.33	0.034
Right	1.97±0.54	2.19±0.62	0.147
Middle	1.46±0.64	1.70±0.78	0.172
Rectosigmoid	1.08±0.48	1.37±0.74	0.078
Fluid	0.59±0.59	0.96±0.65	0.019
41–50 yr (n=90)	(n=51)	(n=39)
Ottawa score	5.59±1.76	5.82±1.60	0.521
Right	1.98±0.65	2.13±0.52	0.247
Middle	1.49±0.64	1.72±0.61	0.091
Rectosigmoid	1.27±0.57	1.21±0.41	0.503
Fluid	0.84±0.61	0.77±0.67	0.587
51–60 yr (n=98)	(n=38)	(n=60)
Ottawa score	5.50±1.97	5.73±1.61	0.524
Right	1.95±0.61	2.08±0.50	0.232
Middle	1.39±0.76	1.58±0.62	0.181
Rectosigmoid	1.26±0.60	1.23±0.56	0.804
Fluid	0.89±0.69	0.83±0.59	0.638
Over 61 yr (n=27)	(n=12)	(n=15)
Ottawa score	6.08±1.31	6.87±1.55	0.176
Right	2.25±0.45	2.27±0.46	0.925
Middle	1.75±0.62	1.87±0.52	0.599
Rectosigmoid	1.42±0.52	1.40±0.51	0.933
Fluid	0.67±0.49	1.33±0.82	0.015

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

SMM, smartphone mobile messenger.

Table 4.

Colonoscopy Outcomes and Side Effects

	SMM group (n=140)	Control group (n=141)	p-value
Cecal intubation time (min)	2.7±1.6	2.5±1.3	0.352
Withdrawal time (min)	10.2±2.3	10.9±2.2	0.007
Polyp detection	62 (44.3)	84 (59.6)	0.010
Adenoma detection	32 (22.9)	49 (34.8)	0.028
Severe side effects during bowel preparation
Nausea/vomiting	4 (2.8)	8 (5.7)	0.377
Abdominal pain/discomfort	8 (5.7)	8 (5.7)	1.000
Sleep disturbance	11 (7.9)	5 (3.5)	0.131

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or n (%).

SMM, smartphone mobile messenger.

REFERENCES

1. Sharma VK, Steinberg EN, Vasudeva R, Howden CW. Randomized, controlled study of pretreatment with magnesium citrate on the quality of colonoscopy preparation with polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution. Gastrointest Endosc 1997;46:541–543.Article PubMed
2. Ness RM, Manam R, Hoen H, Chalasani N. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:1797–1802.Article PubMed
3. Chung YW, Han DS, Park KH, et al. Patient factors predictive of inadequate bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol: a prospective study in Korea. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009;43:448–452.Article PubMed
4. Chan WK, Saravanan A, Manikam J, Goh KL, Mahadeva S. Appointment waiting times and education level influence the quality of bowel preparation in adult patients undergoing colonoscopy. BMC Gastroenterol 2011;11:86.Article PubMed PMC PDF
5. Byrne MF. The curse of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1587–1590.Article PubMed
6. Tae JW, Lee JC, Hong SJ, et al. Impact of patient education with cartoon visual aids on the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:804–811.Article PubMed
7. Shieh TY, Chen MJ, Chang CW, et al. Effect of physician-delivered patient education on the quality of bowel preparation for screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2013;2013:570180.Article PubMed PMC PDF
8. Liu X, Luo H, Zhang L, et al. Telephone-based re-education on the day before colonoscopy improves the quality of bowel preparation and the polyp detection rate: a prospective, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised, controlled study. Gut 2014;63:125–130.Article PubMed
9. Hsueh FC, Wang HC, Sun CA, et al. The effect of different patient education methods on quality of bowel cleanliness in outpatients receiving colonoscopy examination. Appl Nurs Res 2014;27:e1–e5.Article PubMed
10. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ, Burnand B, Vader JP. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:378–384.Article PubMed
11. Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:76–79.Article PubMed
12. Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, Bratcher LL. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1696–1700.Article PubMed
13. Marmo R, Rotondano G, Riccio G, et al. Effective bowel cleansing before colonoscopy: a randomized study of split-dosage versus non-split dosage regimens of high-volume versus low-volume polyethylene glycol solutions. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:313–320.Article PubMed
14. Calderwood AH, Lai EJ, Fix OK, Jacobson BC. An endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled trial of a simple visual aid to improve bowel preparation for screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:307–314.Article PubMed
15. Ergen WF, Pasricha T, Hubbard FJ, et al. Providing hospitalized patients with an educational booklet increases the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;14:858–864.Article PubMed
16. Lee YJ, Kim ES, Choi JH, et al. Impact of reinforced education by telephone and short message service on the quality of bowel preparation: a randomized controlled study. Endoscopy 2015;47:1018–1027.Article PubMed PDF
17. 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;50:479–485.Article PubMed PMC PDF
18. Park JH, Kim SJ, Hyun JH, et al. Correlation between bowel preparation and the adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy. Ann Coloproctol 2017;33:93–98.Article PubMed PMC PDF
19. Calderwood AH, Thompson KD, Schroy PC 3rd, Lieberman DA, Jacobson BC. Good is better than excellent: bowel preparation quality and adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:691–699; e1.Article PubMed PMC
20. 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;31:217–223.PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Evaluation of the effect of reinforced education on the satisfaction of patients undergoing colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial
Negin Farid, Shakila Sharifian, Raziyeh Ghafouri, Antonio Brillantino
PLOS ONE.2024; 19(1): e0296126. CrossRef
Can an educational video improve the adequacy of bowel preparation for patients undergoing their first colonoscopy? Results of the EBOPS RCT
Thomas Archer, Bernard Corfe, Keith Dear, Andy Cole, Stephen Foley, H Jervoise N Andreyev, Waleed Fateen, Andrew Baxter, Stuart Riley, Adolfo Parra-Blanco, Mo Thoufeeq
Endoscopy International Open.2024; 12(03): E402. CrossRef
Improving Colonoscopy Preparation Using Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Randomized Clinical Trial
Diego Mauricio Aponte Martín, Claudia Liliana Corso Bernal, María Valentina Aponte Aparicio, Luis Carlos Sabbagh Sanvicente
Revista colombiana de Gastroenterología.2024; 39(1): 51. CrossRef
A smartphone application to enhance bowel preparation for first-time colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study
Tanawat Pattarapuntakul, Thanyaporn Kanchanasuwan, Apichat Kaewdech, Thanawin Wong, Nisa Netinatsunton, Nalerdon Chalermsuksant, Pimsiri Sripongpun
Frontiers in Medicine.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Edukacinio 3D virtualiosios realybės vaizdo metodo įtaka ruošiant žarnyną kolonoskopijai: pirmieji rezultatai
Edvinas Kildušis, Gintautas Brimas
Lietuvos chirurgija.2024; 23(2): 108. CrossRef
Online patient endoscopy education platform improves outpatient bowel preparation quality: Retrospective observational study
Yuming Ding, Ann Vandeleur, Gonzalo Chinchilla, Kimberley Littlemore, Ruth Hodgson, Tony Rahman
Endoscopy International Open.2024; 12(11): E1326. CrossRef
Effectiveness of bowel preparation innovative technology instructions (BPITIs) on clinical outcomes among patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Parichat Wonggom, Siwanon Rattanakanokchai, Orathai Suebkinorn
Scientific Reports.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Impact of WeChat guidance on bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a quasi-experiment study
Yifang Guan, Yanjun Song, Xiaona Li, Aijun Zhang, Ruyuan Li
Scientific Reports.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Correlation between prescribing doctor attributes and intestinal cleanliness in colonoscopy: a study of 22522 patients
Haibin Zhou, Hayat Khizar, Xiaofeng Zhang, Jianfeng Yang
Annals of Medicine.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
An Interactive Video Educational Tool Does Not Improve the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Study
Ted B. Walker, Tricia A. Hengehold, Kevin Garza, Benjamin D. Rogers, Dayna Early
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2022; 67(6): 2347. CrossRef
Comparison of 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid and 4 L Polyethylene Glycol in Elderly Patients Aged 60–79: A Prospective Randomized Study
Sung Hoon Jung, Chul-Hyun Lim, Tae-Geun Gweon, Jinsu Kim, Jung Hwan Oh, Kyu-Tae Yoon, Jee Young An, Jeong‑Seon Ji, Hwang Choi
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2022; 67(10): 4841. CrossRef
Patient education by smartphones for bowel preparation before colonoscopy
Peng Li, Xueqian He, Xufang Yang, Jing Du, Weiquan Wu, Jiangfeng Tu
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2022; 37(7): 1349. CrossRef
Los efectos de la educación perfeccionada, realizada por enfermeros en la calidad de la preparación intestinal para colonoscopia
Gamze Arslanca, Mahmure Aygün
Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Effect of nurse-performed enhanced patient education on colonoscopy bowel preparation quality
Gamze Arslanca, Mahmure Aygün
Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Os efeitos da educação aprimorada, realizada por enfermeiros na qualidade do preparo intestinal para colonoscopia
Gamze Arslanca, Mahmure Aygün
Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparison of Two Types of 1-L Polyethylene Glycol-ascorbic Acid as Colonoscopic Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized Study
Suh Hyun Choi, Won Eui Yoon, Seung Hyuk Kim, Hee Jun Myung, Seo Hyun Kim, Soon Oh So, Se Hun Kim, Hyun Mi Lee, Yeoun Jung Oh, Jeong Seop Moon, Tae Yeong Park, You Sun Kim
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2022; 80(2): 85. CrossRef
Multimedia based education on bowel preparation improves adenoma detection rate: Systematic review & meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Saurabh Chandan, Sumant Arora, Babu P. Mohan, Shahab R. Khan, Ojasvini C. Chandan, Lena L. Kassab, Arvind R. Murali
Digestive Endoscopy.2021; 33(5): 730. CrossRef
Mobile health technologies supporting colonoscopy preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Maria El Bizri, Mariam El Sheikh, Ga Eun Lee, Maida J. Sewitch, Tim Mathes
PLOS ONE.2021; 16(3): e0248679. CrossRef
Effects of mobile messenger counseling on case management success for individuals engaging in self-harm or suicide attempts who were discharged from emergency departments
Ji Min Seong, Youngsuk Cho, Gyu Chong Cho, Jongshill Lee, In Young Kim, Hongtaek Seo, Jungmi Kim
Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine.2021; 8(1): 48. CrossRef
Quality Improvement of Bowel Preparation for Screening Colonoscopies: A Study of Hospital Team Resource Management in Taiwan
Chen-Shuan Chung, Chih-Ming Lin, Ming-Shu Chen
Quality Management in Health Care.2021; 30(2): 127. CrossRef
Effects of a Personalized Smartphone App on Bowel Preparation Quality: Randomized Controlled Trial
Quirine E W van der Zander, Ankie Reumkens, Bas van de Valk, Bjorn Winkens, Ad A M Masclee, Rogier J J de Ridder
JMIR mHealth and uHealth.2021; 9(8): e26703. CrossRef
Safe and appropriate use of laxatives for colonoscopy
Won Shik Kim, Beom Jae Lee
Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2021; 64(8): 561. CrossRef
Editors' Choice of Noteworthy Clinical Endoscopy Publications in the First Decade
Gwang Ha Kim, Kwang An Kwon, Do Hyun Park, Jimin Han
Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(5): 633. CrossRef
Comparative Effectiveness of Enhanced Patient Instructions for Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy: Network Meta-analysis of 23 Randomized Controlled Trials
Xu Tian, Li-Juan Yi, Yang Han, Hui Chen, Xiao-Ling Liu, Wei-Qing Chen, Maria F Jiménez-Herrera
Journal of Medical Internet Research.2021; 23(10): e19915. CrossRef
Influence of Educational Methods on Bowel Preparation for Coloncopy: Systematic Literature Review
Edvinas Kildušis, Gintautas Brimas
Lietuvos chirurgija.2021; 20(3-4): 135. CrossRef
Telephonic Nurse Guidance for Colonoscopy: A Clinical Trial
Tatiane Santa Rosa Diniz, Suzimar de Fátima Benato Fusco, Maria Elizandre Camilo de Oliveira, Hélio Rubens de Carvalho Nunes, Marla Andréia Garcia de Avila
Clinical Nursing Research.2021; 30(6): 762. CrossRef
Educating Patients by Providing Timely Information Using Smartphone and Tablet Apps: Systematic Review
Thomas Timmers, Loes Janssen, Rudolf B Kool, Jan AM Kremer
Journal of Medical Internet Research.2020; 22(4): e17342. CrossRef
How Can We Achieve Good Compliance for Bowel Preparation?
Jongha Park, Tae Oh Kim
Clinical Endoscopy.2019; 52(1): 3. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Effect of Sending Educational Video Clips via Smartphone Mobile Messenger on Bowel Preparation before Colonoscopy

Clin Endosc. 2019;52(1):53-58. Published online August 29, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2018.072

XML Download

Figure

Effect of Sending Educational Video Clips via Smartphone Mobile Messenger on Bowel Preparation before Colonoscopy

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the study.

Fig. 1.

Effect of Sending Educational Video Clips via Smartphone Mobile Messenger on Bowel Preparation before Colonoscopy

	SMM group (n=140)	Control group (n=141)	p-value
Age (yr)	46.7±9.9	49.9±9.6	0.006
Sex			0.959
Male	80 (57.1)	81 (57.4)
Female	60 (42.9)	60 (42.6)
BMI (kg/m²)	23.5±3.0	24.5±3.1	0.009
Previous experience of colonoscopy			0.257
No	67 (47.9)	58 (41.1)
Yes	73 (52.1)	83 (58.9)
Bowel preparation type			1.000
PEG-ELP	140	141
Others	0	0

	SMM group (n=140)	Control group (n=141)	p-value
Compliance			0.069
Good	136 (97.1)	129 (91.5)
Bad	4 (2.9)	12 (8.5)
Last defecation after bowel preparation			0.121
Clear, no residue	30 (21.4)	20 (14.2)
Yellow residue	110 (78.6)	121 (85.8)
Ottawa score	5.47±1.74	5.97±1.78	0.018
Right	1.99±0.59	2.13±0.52	0.035
Middle	1.48±0.67	1.67±0.64	0.013
Rectosigmoid	1.23±0.55	1.27±0.56	0.538
Fluid	0.77±0.63	0.89±0.66	0.113
Adequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy (Ottawa score <6)	71 (50.7)	60 (42.6)	0.170

	SMM group (n=140)	Control group (n=141)	p-value
Under 40 yr (n=66)	(n=39)	(n=27)
Ottawa score	5.10±1.55	6.22±2.33	0.034
Right	1.97±0.54	2.19±0.62	0.147
Middle	1.46±0.64	1.70±0.78	0.172
Rectosigmoid	1.08±0.48	1.37±0.74	0.078
Fluid	0.59±0.59	0.96±0.65	0.019
41–50 yr (n=90)	(n=51)	(n=39)
Ottawa score	5.59±1.76	5.82±1.60	0.521
Right	1.98±0.65	2.13±0.52	0.247
Middle	1.49±0.64	1.72±0.61	0.091
Rectosigmoid	1.27±0.57	1.21±0.41	0.503
Fluid	0.84±0.61	0.77±0.67	0.587
51–60 yr (n=98)	(n=38)	(n=60)
Ottawa score	5.50±1.97	5.73±1.61	0.524
Right	1.95±0.61	2.08±0.50	0.232
Middle	1.39±0.76	1.58±0.62	0.181
Rectosigmoid	1.26±0.60	1.23±0.56	0.804
Fluid	0.89±0.69	0.83±0.59	0.638
Over 61 yr (n=27)	(n=12)	(n=15)
Ottawa score	6.08±1.31	6.87±1.55	0.176
Right	2.25±0.45	2.27±0.46	0.925
Middle	1.75±0.62	1.87±0.52	0.599
Rectosigmoid	1.42±0.52	1.40±0.51	0.933
Fluid	0.67±0.49	1.33±0.82	0.015

	SMM group (n=140)	Control group (n=141)	p-value
Cecal intubation time (min)	2.7±1.6	2.5±1.3	0.352
Withdrawal time (min)	10.2±2.3	10.9±2.2	0.007
Polyp detection	62 (44.3)	84 (59.6)	0.010
Adenoma detection	32 (22.9)	49 (34.8)	0.028
Severe side effects during bowel preparation
Nausea/vomiting	4 (2.8)	8 (5.7)	0.377
Abdominal pain/discomfort	8 (5.7)	8 (5.7)	1.000
Sleep disturbance	11 (7.9)	5 (3.5)	0.131

Table 1. Baseline Characteristics

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or n (%).

SMM, smartphone mobile messenger; BMI, body mass index; PEG-ELP, polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder.

Table 2. Bowel Preparation Outcomes

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or n (%).

SMM, smartphone mobile messenger.

Table 3. Bowel Preparation Outcomes according to Age Group

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

SMM, smartphone mobile messenger.

Table 4. Colonoscopy Outcomes and Side Effects

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or n (%).

SMM, smartphone mobile messenger.