Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35518531›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Using Information Videos to Improve Patient Satisfaction in Endoscopy: A Prospective Service Improvement Project.

Ephraim Broder, Amelia Davies, Laith Alrubaiy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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

3 authors.

Ephraim BroderGastroenterology, Imperial College London University, London, GBR.
Amelia DaviesGastroenterology, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, GBR.
Laith AlrubaiyGastroenterology, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopy is a rapidly developing discipline with new techniques and procedures being introduced each year. The consenting process is central to patient perception; using information videos as additional tools to aid consent and improve the quality of care in endoscopy is not well established. Our aim was to develop, implement and validate the use of patient educational videos to improve patients' satisfaction and experience in endoscopy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This was a prospective service quality improvement study. Eligible patients were invited to watch the educational videos in addition to standard practice. We compared this group with a matched cohort of patients who were receiving standard care of postal information leaflets. Patient satisfaction was measured through the validated Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire (GESQ).

resultsPatients in the intervention group scored four questions relating to pre-procedural information significantly higher than the control (p=0.038). The total mean GESQ score was also higher in the intervention group compared to the control, however this was not statistically significant (p=0.397). The intervention group had significantly lower cancellation rate (4%) compared to the control group (20%), p=0.023.

conclusionsPatients who watched educational videos were more satisfied with pre-procedural information in the consenting period than those who did not. Further research is still needed to determine if they reduce patient anxiety. Meanwhile, it would be appropriate to implement these videos into routine practice as a cost-effective method of improving patient satisfaction.

Indexed as

endoscopy interventiongastroenterology and endoscopypatient consentpatient counselingvideo feedback

Identifiers

PMID35518531
PMCPMC9065946

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.