Satisfaction and experience with colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review of validated patient reported outcome measures.

Colorectal Neoplasms / diagnosis Early Detection of Cancer Humans Patient Reported Outcome Measures Patient Satisfaction Personal Satisfaction Quality of Life Surveys and Questionnaires
Colorectal cancer screening Instruments PROM Patient experience Patient reported outcome measures Patient satisfaction Questionnaires systematic review

Journal

BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
27 10 2021
Historique:
received: 15 06 2021
accepted: 08 10 2021
entrez: 28 10 2021
pubmed: 29 10 2021
medline: 3 11 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Patient satisfaction or experience with colorectal cancer screening can determine adherence to screening programs. An evaluation of validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring experience or satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening does not exist. Our objective was to identify and critically appraise validated questionnaires for measuring patient satisfaction or experience with colorectal cancer screening. We conducted a systematic review following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. We conducted searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and BiblioPRO and assessed the methodological quality of studies and measurement properties of questionnaires according to the COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of PROMs. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019118527. We included 80 studies that used 75 questionnaires, of which only 5 were validated. Four questionnaires measured satisfaction with endoscopy: two in the context of colorectal cancer screening (for colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy) and two for non-screening endoscopy. One questionnaire measured satisfaction with bowel preparation. The methodological quality of studies was variable. The questionnaires with evidence for sufficient content validity and internal consistency were: the CSSQP questionnaire, which measures safety and satisfaction with screening colonoscopy, and the Post-Procedure questionnaire which measures satisfaction with non-screening endoscopic procedures. This systematic review shows that a minority of existing PROMs for measuring patient satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening are validated. We identified two questionnaires with high potential for further use (CSSQP and the Post-Procedure questionnaire).

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Patient satisfaction or experience with colorectal cancer screening can determine adherence to screening programs. An evaluation of validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring experience or satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening does not exist. Our objective was to identify and critically appraise validated questionnaires for measuring patient satisfaction or experience with colorectal cancer screening.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. We conducted searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and BiblioPRO and assessed the methodological quality of studies and measurement properties of questionnaires according to the COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of PROMs. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019118527.
RESULTS
We included 80 studies that used 75 questionnaires, of which only 5 were validated. Four questionnaires measured satisfaction with endoscopy: two in the context of colorectal cancer screening (for colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy) and two for non-screening endoscopy. One questionnaire measured satisfaction with bowel preparation. The methodological quality of studies was variable. The questionnaires with evidence for sufficient content validity and internal consistency were: the CSSQP questionnaire, which measures safety and satisfaction with screening colonoscopy, and the Post-Procedure questionnaire which measures satisfaction with non-screening endoscopic procedures.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review shows that a minority of existing PROMs for measuring patient satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening are validated. We identified two questionnaires with high potential for further use (CSSQP and the Post-Procedure questionnaire).

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01430-7 PMID: 34706652 PMC: PMC8549248
pubmed: 34706652
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01430-7
pii: 10.1186/s12874-021-01430-7
pmc: PMC8549248
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

230

Investigateurs

Andrea Burón (A)
Francesc Macià (F)
Salvador Machlab (S)
Carles Pericay (C)
Teresa Puig (T)

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2005 Aug;97(8):554-61
pubmed: 16266222
Dig Dis Sci. 2005 Oct;50(10):1860-71
pubmed: 16187188
World J Gastroenterol. 2017 May 28;23(20):3632-3642
pubmed: 28611516
BMC Public Health. 2014 Mar 07;14:238
pubmed: 24606951
BMC Public Health. 2017 Aug 1;18(1):81
pubmed: 28764667
Qual Life Res. 2021 Aug;30(8):2197-2218
pubmed: 33818733
Eur Psychiatry. 2017 Jul;44:104-124
pubmed: 28641213
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42
pubmed: 17161752
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Jan 30;16(3):
pubmed: 30704126
Breast. 2018 Jun;39:33-38
pubmed: 29533883
Patient. 2016 Feb;9(1):27-34
pubmed: 26714490
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157
pubmed: 29435801
Gut. 2015 Oct;64(10):1637-49
pubmed: 26041752
Online J Issues Nurs. ;21(1):1
pubmed: 27852212
Cancer Causes Control. 2006 May;17(4):439-47
pubmed: 16596296
J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Apr;17(2):268-74
pubmed: 20874835
Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016 Dec;15(4):298-313
pubmed: 27133893
Int J Dermatol. 2020 Aug;59(8):902-914
pubmed: 32153017
Dig Liver Dis. 2014 Jan;46(1):82-6
pubmed: 24011791
Trials. 2016 Sep 13;17(1):449
pubmed: 27618914
Health Econ Rev. 2016 Dec;6(1):18
pubmed: 27209027
Qual Life Res. 2009 Oct;18(8):1115-23
pubmed: 19711195
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD001216
pubmed: 17253456
J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Dec;46(12):1417-32
pubmed: 8263569
Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(32):1-244
pubmed: 12925269
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-91
pubmed: 11124735
Patient. 2012;5(2):79-87
pubmed: 22428752
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
Health Promot J Austr. 2012 Aug;23(2):122-8
pubmed: 23088473
Endoscopy. 2012 Sep;44 Suppl 3:SE1-8
pubmed: 23012113
Psychooncology. 2009 Jul;18(7):727-34
pubmed: 19035468
Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 23;4:97
pubmed: 26202326
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Jan;15(1):23-34
pubmed: 24314615
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 19;369(12):1106-14
pubmed: 24047060
An Sist Sanit Navar. 2019 Dec 5;42(3):361-363
pubmed: 31859276
Am J Med. 2006 Sep;119(9):791-9
pubmed: 16945615
Womens Health Issues. 2008 Mar-Apr;18(2):110-7
pubmed: 18319148
BMJ Open. 2013 Jan 03;3(1):
pubmed: 23293244
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1159-1170
pubmed: 29550964
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2005 Nov;53(5):549-67
pubmed: 16434928
Eur Radiol. 2007 Sep;17(9):2286-93
pubmed: 17522866
Arch Intern Med. 2000 Jun 26;160(12):1790-6
pubmed: 10871972
Br J Cancer. 2014 Aug 26;111(5):970-5
pubmed: 24983363
World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jul 28;23(28):5086-5096
pubmed: 28811705
Gerodontology. 2018 Apr 3;:
pubmed: 29611876
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1171-1179
pubmed: 29260445
Brain Sci. 2020 Mar 19;10(3):
pubmed: 32204563
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2020 Jun;72(6):798-805
pubmed: 30980507

Auteurs

A Selva (A)

Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Edifici Santa Fè. Parc Taulí 1, Sabadell, 08208, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. aselva@tauli.cat.
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain. aselva@tauli.cat.
REDISSEC (Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network), Madrid, Spain. aselva@tauli.cat.

C Selva (C)

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Estudis de Psicologia i Ciències de l'Educació), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.

Y Álvarez-Pérez (Y)

Fundación Canaria Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Canarias (FIISC), Tenerife, Spain.

N Torà (N)

Cancer Screening Programms. Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Catalonia, Spain.

P López (P)

Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Edifici Santa Fè. Parc Taulí 1, Sabadell, 08208, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.

R Terraza-Núñez (R)

Direcció General de Planificació en Salut, Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.

V Rodríguez (V)

Tecnocampus, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Mataró, Catalonia, Spain.

I Solà (I)

Institute of Biomedical Research, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli et al.
1.00
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hallie Tankha, Devyn Gaskins, Amanda Shallcross et al.
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › Maladies de l'appareil digestif › Maladies gastro-intestinales › Maladies intestinales › Maladies du rectum › Tumeurs colorectales › Satisfaction and experience with colorectal...
questionsmedicales.fr › Diagnostic › Diagnostic précoce › Dépistage précoce du cancer › Satisfaction and experience with colorectal...
questionsmedicales.fr › Eucaryotes › Animaux › Chordés › Vertébrés › Mammifères › Eutheria › Primates › Haplorhini › Catarrhini › Hominidae › Humains › Satisfaction and experience with colorectal...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Méthodes épidémiologiques › Collecte de données › Enquêtes et questionnaires › Enquêtes sur les soins de santé › Mesures des résultats rapportés par les patients › Satisfaction and experience with colorectal...
questionsmedicales.fr › Qualité, accès, évaluation des soins de santé › Qualité des soins de santé › Mécanismes d'évaluation des soins de santé › Satisfaction des patients › Satisfaction and experience with colorectal...
questionsmedicales.fr › Comportement et mécanismes comportementaux › Comportement › Satisfaction personnelle › Satisfaction and experience with colorectal...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Mesures épidémiologiques › Démographie › État de santé › Qualité de vie › Satisfaction and experience with colorectal...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Méthodes épidémiologiques › Collecte de données › Enquêtes et questionnaires › Satisfaction and experience with colorectal...