A comparison of patient acceptance and preferences between CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening

17Citations
Citations of this article
57Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background/Aims: Colorectal cancer, one of the most common cancers in developed countries, is curable when diagnosed at an early stage. However, for better screening, both a test that patients will tolerate and diagnostic accuracy are required. We compared patient experiences and preferences between computed tomographic (CT) colonography and conventional colonoscopy (CC) under conscious sedation. Methods: Patients referred to the gastrointestinal clinic for CC were enrolled to also undergo CT colonography prior to CC. After each procedure, patients completed a questionnaire in which variables, such as abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, and loss of dignity, were assessed using a 7-point Likert scale, with the highest score representing the worst experience. To verify response stability, a telephone questionnaire followed within 24 h after each procedure. Patients were then asked about their preference for CT colonography or CC. Results: Data were collected from 51 patients who fulfilled all requirements, including CT colonography, CC, the two questionnaires after each procedure, and a follow-up questionnaire. Severity of abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, and a loss of dignity were reported to be higher in CT colonography than in CC (p<0.01). In addition, the preference for CC was significantly higher than that for CT colonography (p<0.01). Conclusions: Although CT colonography is a safe and noninvasive screening test for colorectal cancer, further study is required to increase patient acceptance.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jung, H. S., Park, D. K., Kim, M. J., Yu, S. K., Kwon, K. A., Ku, Y. S., … Kim, J. H. (2009). A comparison of patient acceptance and preferences between CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Korean Journal of Internal Medicine, 24(1), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2009.24.1.43

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free