Combined written and oral information prior to gastrointestinal endoscopy compared with oral information alone: a randomized trial.
Details
Download: BIB_B13995E32AAE.P001.pdf (310.77 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: author
State: Public
Version: author
Serval ID
serval:BIB_B13995E32AAE
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Combined written and oral information prior to gastrointestinal endoscopy compared with oral information alone: a randomized trial.
Journal
BMC Gastroenterology
ISSN
1471-230X
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2008
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
8
Pages
22
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Comparative Study ; Journal Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about how to most effectively deliver relevant information to patients scheduled for endoscopy. METHODS: To assess the effects of combined written and oral information, compared with oral information alone on the quality of information before endoscopy and the level of anxiety. We designed a prospective study in two Swiss teaching hospitals which enrolled consecutive patients scheduled for endoscopy over a three-month period. Patients were randomized either to receiving, along with the appointment notice, an explanatory leaflet about the upcoming examination, or to oral information delivered by each patient's doctor. Evaluation of quality of information was rated on scales between 0 (none received) and 5 (excellent). The analysis of outcome variables was performed on the basis of intention to treat-analysis. Multivariate analysis of predictors of information scores was performed by linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 718 eligible patients 577 (80%) returned their questionnaire. Patients who received written leaflets (N = 278) rated the quality of information they received higher than those informed verbally (N = 299), for all 8 quality-of-information items. Differences were significant regarding information about the risks of the procedure (3.24 versus 2.26, p < 0.001), how to prepare for the procedure (3.56 versus 3.23, p = 0.036), what to expect after the procedure (2.99 versus 2.59, p < 0.001), and the 8 quality-of-information items (3.35 versus 3.02, p = 0.002). The two groups reported similar levels of anxiety before procedure (p = 0.66), pain during procedure (p = 0.20), tolerability throughout the procedure (p = 0.76), problems after the procedure (p = 0.22), and overall rating of the procedure between poor and excellent (p = 0.82). CONCLUSION: Written information led to more favourable assessments of the quality of information and had no impact on patient anxiety nor on the overall assessment of the endoscopy. Because structured and comprehensive written information is perceived as beneficial by patients, gastroenterologists should clearly explain to their patients the risks, benefits and alternatives of endoscopic procedures. Trial registration: Current Controlled trial number: ISRCTN34382782.
Keywords
Anxiety, Disclosure, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal, Female, Humans, Informed Consent, Language, Male, Middle Aged, Pamphlets, Patient Education as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Preoperative Care, Questionnaires, Research Design, Writing
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
02/03/2009 13:47
Last modification date
20/08/2019 15:20