Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40846494›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open gastroenterology2025

Patient priorities and decision-making process when choosing between colonic investigation alternatives: a qualitative interview study.

Campbell MacLeod, Shaun Treweek, Philip Wilson, Angus James Mackintosh Watson, Samantha Robinson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05391529 (Patients Decision Making in Choosing Between Colonic Investigation Alternatives), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

NCT05391529 completednot on this map

Patients Decision Making in Choosing Between Colonic Investigation Alternatives

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of AberdeenRan2022 to 2024Enrolled12ConditionsColonic DiseaseArmsInterview
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Campbell MacLeodDepartment of General Surgery, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK campbell.macleod@nhs.scot.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9161-0661
Shaun TreweekAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Philip WilsonDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Public Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Angus James Mackintosh WatsonInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1556-0097
Samantha RobinsonSchool of Health and Life Science, University of the West of Scotland, South Lanarkshire, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo establish patients' perceptions of decision-making and prioritisation of test attributes when considering a colonic investigation.

methodsNational Health Service Highland patients on the waiting list for a colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and colonoscopy were invited to undergo a semistructured qualitative telephone interview. A diverse sample was sought using a purposive sampling strategy, aiming for differences in age, gender and test awaited between participants. An interview guide was developed using an iterative approach and published data on patients' experience of colonic investigations. Data were analysed using phenomenological approach and thematic analysis.

resultsBetween 12 June 2022 and 02 August 2022, 12 patients underwent telephone interviews. Nine of those patients were on the waiting list for colonoscopy and three were waiting for a CCE. Patients described a mixed level of involvement in the decision-making process for a colonic investigation; some were not involved in the process at all, while others were guided by their clinician. The most important test aspect reported by patients was diagnostic quality, focused on getting a diagnosis, ruling out cancer or the diagnostic accuracy of the test. The importance of the waiting time for the test, the amount of pain or discomfort experienced during the test and the invasiveness of the test were also discussed by patients.

conclusionThrough qualitative interviews, we have identified patients' priorities for colonic investigations, which should be further explored to quantify the value patients place on these aspects of the test. Areas of improvement in the decision-making process have been reported, which could be addressed to improve patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05391529.

Indexed as

Capsule EndoscopyColonoscopyDecision MakingPatient ParticipationAdultAgedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchWaiting ListsCANCERCOLONOSCOPYENDOSCOPY

Identifiers

PMID40846494
PMCPMC12374614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.