Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33084594›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2020

New Patient Education Video on Colonoscopy Preparation: Development and Evaluation Study.

Matthew T Bernstein, Jesse Garber, Patrick Faucher, Kristin A Reynolds, Gayle Restall, John R Walker, Harminder Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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.

Matthew T BernsteinDepartment of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9066-733X
Jesse GarberIBD Clinical and Research Centre, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3027-6676
Patrick FaucherGeorge and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8571-8975
Kristin A ReynoldsDepartment of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5367-7021
Gayle RestallDepartment of Occupational Therapy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8656-6261
John R WalkerDepartment of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5349-1689
Harminder SinghIBD Clinical and Research Centre, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9354-2356

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough several patient education materials on colonoscopy preparation exist, few studies have evaluated or compared them; hence, there is no professional consensus on recommended content or media to use.

objectiveThis study aims to address this need by developing and evaluating a new video on colonoscopy preparation.

methodsWe developed a new video explaining split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Of similar content videos on the internet (n=20), the most favorably reviewed video among patient and physician advisers was used as the comparator for the study. A total of 232 individuals attending gastroenterology or urology clinics reviewed the new and comparator videos. The order of administration of the new and comparator videos was randomly counterbalanced to assess the impact of presentation order. Respondents rated each video on the following dimensions: information amount, clarity, trustworthiness, understandability, new or familiar information, reassurance, information learned, understanding from the patient's point of view, appeal, and the likelihood of recommending the video to others.

resultsOverall, 71.6% (166/232) of the participants preferred the new video, 25.0% (58/232) preferred the comparator video, and 3.4% (8/232) were not sure. Furthermore, 64.0% (71/111) of those who viewed the new video first preferred it, whereas 77.7% (94/121) of the participants who viewed the new video second preferred it. Multivariable logistic regression analysis also demonstrated that participants were more likely to prefer the new video if they had viewed it second. Participants who preferred the new video rated it as clearer and more trustworthy than those who preferred the comparator video.

conclusionsThis study developed and assessed the strengths of a newly developed colonoscopy educational video.

Indexed as

bowel preparationevaluation studyimplementation scienceinformation disseminationinformation literacymedical informaticspatient educationpatient preferencetranslational medical research

Identifiers

PMID33084594
PMCPMC7641787

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.