ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2012
Gender preference and implications for screening colonoscopy: impact of endoscopy nurses.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Attitudes toward colorectal cancer and colonoscopy in Palestine: a questionnaire-based study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Sex/gender differences in gastrointestinal endoscopy from the perspective of patients and gastroenterologists.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Review
- Equity and Gender Issues Among Members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Reflecting strategic and conforming gendered experiences of community health workers using photovoice in rural Wakiso district, Uganda.Human resources for health · 2018Article
- Israeli Druze women's sex preferences when choosing obstetricians and gynecologists.Israel journal of health policy research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the gender preferences, specifically the gender of the nursing staff (endoscopy assistants) and the impact on acceptance for screening colonoscopy (SC).
methodsPatients or relatives attending the clinics or health care workers working in a tertiary center were invited to participate in this questionnaire study. The questionnaire enquired on the general demographics (1) age, gender, ethnicity, education level, and employment status, previous history of colonoscopy, family or personal history of colonic pathologies, personal and family history of any cancers; (2) subjects were asked if they would go for an SC if they had appropriate indications (age over 50 years, family history of colorectal cancer (CRC), fecal occult blood positive, anemia especially iron deficiency anemia, bleeding per rectum with or without loss of appetite, weight loss and abdominal pain) with and without symptoms attributable to CRC; and (3) preferences for the gender of the endoscopists and assistants and whether they would still undergo SC even if their preferences were not met.
resultsEighty-four point seven percent (470/550) completed questionnaire were analysed. More female subjects expressed gender preferences for the endoscopists [overall 70%; female (67.7%) and male (2.3%)] compared to male subjects [overall 62.8%; male (56%) and female (6.8%), P = 0.102]. Similarly, more female subjects expressed gender preferences for the assistants [overall 74.5%; female (73.4%) and male (1.1%)] compared to male subjects [overall 58%, male (49.3%) and female (8.7%), P < 0.001]. Overall, a third would decline an SC, despite having appropriate indications, if their preferences were not met. On univariate analysis, male gender, non-Malay ethnicity (Chinese and others) and previous colonoscopy experience were more likely to undergo an SC, even if their preferences were not met (all P < 0.05). Gender and previous experience [odds ratio (OR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-2.82, P < 0.05] with colonoscopy (OR 4.70, 95% CI 1.41-15.66, P < 0.05) remained significant on multivariate analysis.
conclusionGenders preference for the endoscopy nurses/assistants is more common than for the endoscopist among women and has implications for the success of a screening colonoscopy program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.