ArticleJournal of patient experience2015
Results From a Patient Experience Study in Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promoting Research that Supports High-Quality Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Children.Current gastroenterology reports · 2023Review
- Measuring patient and carer experience related to paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy: multicentre questionnaire study.Frontline gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Medical Imaging Outpatients' Experiences With Receiving Information Required for Informed Consent and Preparation: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of patient experience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGastrointestinal endoscopy in children has become a standard diagnostic and therapeutic modality. The aim of our study was to characterize the most memorable elements of the patient experience from the parent's and patient's perspective and determine ways to improve the overall quality of their experience.
methodsUsing a structured questionnaire, we conducted 47 phone interviews with families who had recently undergone gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.
resultsOur study showed clear communication and mutual agreement on care decisions contributed to positive experiences. Inadequate communication of information regarding alternatives to the procedure and risk of complications during the informed consent discussion contributed to negative patient experiences. Standardization of postprocedure follow-up and timely communication of pathology findings also had potential for improvement.
conclusionOur study revealed 2 areas for quality improvement interventions: The need to ensure that alternatives and complications are thoroughly discussed and the need for standardization of postprocedure follow-up.
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.