Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jun;10(1):e001129.
doi: 10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001129.

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy: a scoping review

Colin Sue-Chue-Lam  1   2 , Matthew Castelo  1   2 , Amina Benmessaoud  3 , Teruko Kishibe  4 , Diego Llovet  1   5 , Christine Brezden-Masley  6 , Amy Yx Yu  1   7   8 , Jill Tinmouth  1   8   9 , Nancy N Baxter  10   2   3   8   11
Affiliations

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy: a scoping review

Colin Sue-Chue-Lam et al. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2023 Jun.

Abstract

Background and aims: Non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.

Results: We screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.

Conclusion: Research on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.

Prospero registration number: 42020173906.

Keywords: COLONOSCOPY; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCREENING.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: ‘The authors have no competing interests to declare.’

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow diagram. RCT, randomised controlled trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Outcome time of measurement by time of experience.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Chen C, Läcke E, Stock C, et al. . Colonoscopy and Sigmoidoscopy use among older adults in different countries: A systematic review. Prev Med 2017;103:33–42. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.07.021 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jones RM, Devers KJ, Kuzel AJ, et al. . Patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening. A mixed-methods analysis. Am J Prev Med 2010;38:508–16. 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.01.021 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McLachlan SA, Clements A, Austoker J. Patients’ experiences and reported barriers to colonoscopy in the screening context-A systematic review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 2012;86:137–46. 10.1016/j.pec.2011.04.010 - DOI - PubMed
    1. DeBourcy AC, Lichtenberger S, Felton S, et al. . Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:169–74. 10.1007/s11606-007-0480-1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Koo JH, You MY, Liu K, et al. . Colorectal cancer screening practise is influenced by Ethnicity of medical practitioner and patient. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:390–6. 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2011.06872.x - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding