ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024
Development and content validity testing of a colonoscopy-specific patient-reported experience measure: the Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale (PECS).
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07445828 (Evaluation of Capsule Colonoscopy in Patients With Lynch Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Evaluation of Capsule Colonoscopy in Patients With Lynch Syndrome
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychometric Evaluation of the Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn endoscopic care, favourable patient experiences before, during and after a colonoscopy are essential for the patient's willingness to repeat the procedure. To ensure that significant experiences are measured, patients should be involved in creating the measurement instruments. Thus, the aim of the present study was to develop a colonoscopy-specific PREM by (1) operationalising patient experiences before, during and after a colonoscopy procedure and (2) evaluating its content validity.
methodsThe colonoscopy-specific PREM was developed in two stages: (1) operationalisation with item generation and (2) content validity testing. A previously developed conceptual model, based on a systematic literature review that illustrates patients' (n = 245) experiences of undergoing a colonoscopy, formed the theoretical basis. To assess the degree to which the PREM reflected patients' experiences before, during and after a colonoscopy procedure, content validity was tested-through face validity with healthcare professionals (n = 4) and cognitive interviews with patients (n = 14) having experienced a colonoscopy. Content validity index (CVI) was calculated to investigate the relevance of the items.
resultsThe Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale (PECS) is a colonoscopy-specific PREM consisting of five different constructs: health motivation, discomfort, information, a caring relationship and understanding. Each construct was defined and generated into a pool of items (n = 77). After face-validity assessment with healthcare professionals, a draft 52-item version of the PECS was ready for content validity testing by the patients. During cognitive interviews the patients contributed valuable insights that led to rewording and removal of items. Results from the CVI suggest that the PECS and its content are relevant (I-CVI range 0.5-1, S-CVI/Ave = 0.86). The final PECS consists of 30 items representing a colonoscopy-specific PREM.
conclusionThe PECS is a new 30-item PREM instrument designed for adult elective colonoscopy patients after they have undergone the procedure. Each item in the PECS derives from a conceptual model based on a systematic literature review. Patients and healthcare professionals were involved in developing the PECS, which measures colonoscopy-specific patient experiences before, during and after the procedure. The content validity testing positively contributed to the development of the PECS. Psychometric properties need to be evaluated further.
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.