Cargando…

Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial

BACKGROUND: A pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is necessary to assess a screenee’s general health status and to explain benefits and risks of screening. The first option allows for personal attention, whereas a telephone consultation does not require travelling. We h...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stoop, E M, de Wijkerslooth, T R, Bossuyt, P M, Stoker, J, Fockens, P, Kuipers, E J, Dekker, E, van Leerdam, M E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461154/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22918392
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.358
_version_ 1782245044638449664
author Stoop, E M
de Wijkerslooth, T R
Bossuyt, P M
Stoker, J
Fockens, P
Kuipers, E J
Dekker, E
van Leerdam, M E
author_facet Stoop, E M
de Wijkerslooth, T R
Bossuyt, P M
Stoker, J
Fockens, P
Kuipers, E J
Dekker, E
van Leerdam, M E
author_sort Stoop, E M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is necessary to assess a screenee’s general health status and to explain benefits and risks of screening. The first option allows for personal attention, whereas a telephone consultation does not require travelling. We hypothesised that a telephone consultation would lead to higher response and participation in CRC screening compared with a face-to-face consultation. METHODS: A total of 6600 persons (50–75 years) were 1 : 1 randomised for primary colonoscopy screening with a pre-colonoscopy consultation either face-to-face or by telephone. In both arms, we counted the number of invitees who attended a pre-colonoscopy consultation (response) and the number of those who subsequently attended colonoscopy (participation), relative to the number invited for screening. A questionnaire regarding satisfaction with the consultation and expected burden of the colonoscopy (scored on five-point rating scales) was sent to invitees. Besides, a questionnaire to assess the perceived burden of colonoscopy was sent to participants, 14 days after the procedure. RESULTS: In all, 3302 invitees were allocated to the telephone group and 3298 to the face-to-face group, of which 794 (24%) attended a telephone consultation and 822 (25%) a face-to-face consultation (P=0.41). Subsequently, 674 (20%) participants in the telephone group and 752 (23%) in the face-to-face group attended colonoscopy (P=0.018). Invitees and responders in the telephone group expected the bowel preparation to be more painful than those in the face-to-face group while perceived burden scores for the full screening procedure were comparable. More subjects in the face-to-face group than in the telephone group were satisfied by the consultation in general: (99.8% vs 98.5%, P=0.014). CONCLUSION: Using a telephone rather than a face-to-face consultation in a population-based CRC colonoscopy screening programme leads to similar response rates but significantly lower colonoscopy participation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3461154
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34611542013-09-25 Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial Stoop, E M de Wijkerslooth, T R Bossuyt, P M Stoker, J Fockens, P Kuipers, E J Dekker, E van Leerdam, M E Br J Cancer Clinical Study BACKGROUND: A pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is necessary to assess a screenee’s general health status and to explain benefits and risks of screening. The first option allows for personal attention, whereas a telephone consultation does not require travelling. We hypothesised that a telephone consultation would lead to higher response and participation in CRC screening compared with a face-to-face consultation. METHODS: A total of 6600 persons (50–75 years) were 1 : 1 randomised for primary colonoscopy screening with a pre-colonoscopy consultation either face-to-face or by telephone. In both arms, we counted the number of invitees who attended a pre-colonoscopy consultation (response) and the number of those who subsequently attended colonoscopy (participation), relative to the number invited for screening. A questionnaire regarding satisfaction with the consultation and expected burden of the colonoscopy (scored on five-point rating scales) was sent to invitees. Besides, a questionnaire to assess the perceived burden of colonoscopy was sent to participants, 14 days after the procedure. RESULTS: In all, 3302 invitees were allocated to the telephone group and 3298 to the face-to-face group, of which 794 (24%) attended a telephone consultation and 822 (25%) a face-to-face consultation (P=0.41). Subsequently, 674 (20%) participants in the telephone group and 752 (23%) in the face-to-face group attended colonoscopy (P=0.018). Invitees and responders in the telephone group expected the bowel preparation to be more painful than those in the face-to-face group while perceived burden scores for the full screening procedure were comparable. More subjects in the face-to-face group than in the telephone group were satisfied by the consultation in general: (99.8% vs 98.5%, P=0.014). CONCLUSION: Using a telephone rather than a face-to-face consultation in a population-based CRC colonoscopy screening programme leads to similar response rates but significantly lower colonoscopy participation. Nature Publishing Group 2012-09-25 2012-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC3461154/ /pubmed/22918392 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.358 Text en Copyright © 2012 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Stoop, E M
de Wijkerslooth, T R
Bossuyt, P M
Stoker, J
Fockens, P
Kuipers, E J
Dekker, E
van Leerdam, M E
Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial
title Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial
title_full Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial
title_fullStr Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial
title_full_unstemmed Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial
title_short Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial
title_sort face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461154/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22918392
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.358
work_keys_str_mv AT stoopem facetofacevstelephoneprecolonoscopyconsultationincolorectalcancerscreeningarandomisedtrial
AT dewijkersloothtr facetofacevstelephoneprecolonoscopyconsultationincolorectalcancerscreeningarandomisedtrial
AT bossuytpm facetofacevstelephoneprecolonoscopyconsultationincolorectalcancerscreeningarandomisedtrial
AT stokerj facetofacevstelephoneprecolonoscopyconsultationincolorectalcancerscreeningarandomisedtrial
AT fockensp facetofacevstelephoneprecolonoscopyconsultationincolorectalcancerscreeningarandomisedtrial
AT kuipersej facetofacevstelephoneprecolonoscopyconsultationincolorectalcancerscreeningarandomisedtrial
AT dekkere facetofacevstelephoneprecolonoscopyconsultationincolorectalcancerscreeningarandomisedtrial
AT vanleerdamme facetofacevstelephoneprecolonoscopyconsultationincolorectalcancerscreeningarandomisedtrial