Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30333033›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Perspectives of primary care providers and endoscopists about current practices, facilitators and barriers for preparation and follow-up of colonoscopy procedures: a qualitative study.

Gayle Restall, John R Walker, Celeste Waldman, Kathleen Zawaly, Valerie Michaud, Dana Moffat, Harminder Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Gaps and improvement opportunities in post-colonoscopy communication.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Gayle RestallDepartment of Occupational Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Sciences, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, R106 - 771 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0T6, Canada. gayle.restall@umanitoba.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8656-6261
John R WalkerDepartment of Clinical Health Psychology, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Celeste WaldmanCollege of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Kathleen ZawalyInterdisciplinary Studies, Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Valerie MichaudDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Dana MoffatDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Harminder SinghDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColonoscopy has become a common medical procedure due to increased use of colonoscopy for evaluation of symptoms, colorectal cancer screening and surveillance of people with higher risks of developing colorectal cancer. Timely access to colonoscopy is essential for diagnosis of colorectal cancer, as well as diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease and gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea. The purpose of this study was to obtain the perspectives of primary care providers and endoscopists about current practices, barriers and facilitators to following recommended practice for preparation and follow-up after colonoscopy. We also aimed to obtain recommendations for approaches to improve the process.

methodsSix focus groups (two with gastroenterologists, two with surgeons who perform colonoscopies and two with primary care providers) were held between October 2015 and January 2016. Analysis was performed using inductive qualitative approaches.

resultsVariations and challenges in communication for continuity of care and understanding the distribution of responsibility were identified, as were perceived benefits and challenges of a central intake system for colonoscopies. Recommendations were made to improve processes including strengthening communication and information sharing. A comprehensive quality improvement plan would facilitate implementation of recommendations.

conclusionsFindings emphasize the need for improved patient-focused information resources for each step of the colonoscopy process and improved communication among practitioners. The findings apply to other services requiring collaboration among patients, primary care providers, and medical specialists.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyPrimary Health CareColonic NeoplasmsContinuity of Patient CareEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFocus GroupsFollow-Up StudiesHealth PersonnelHumansInflammatory Bowel DiseasesMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementBowel preparationInformationKnowledge translationLower gastrointestinal endoscopy

Identifiers

PMID30333033
PMCPMC6191911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.