Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy

Patient attitudes and compliance

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To measure patients’ expectations and attitudes about screening flexible sigmoidoscopy and their discomfort during the procedure, and to identify factors affecting compliance among patients scheduled for sigmoidoscopy.

Design: Patient survey at the time sigmoidoscopy was ordered and again one week after the procedure was performed.

Setting: An academic general internal medicine practice.

Patients: 105 consecutive patients scheduled for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Main results: Seventy-five percent of patients (79/105) scheduled for sigmoidoscopy complied with the procedure. Compliance was higher among men and among patients who had family histories of colon cancer. Although many patients experienced moderate to extreme embarrassment (27%), discomfort (42%), and pain (31%), patients experienced less embarrassment (p=0.03) and pain (p=0.02) than they had expected. Patients aged 65 years and older were twice as likely as younger ones (52% versus 25%) to experience moderate to extreme pain (p=0.04). Only 1.4% of patients reported that they would probably not have the test again.

Conclusion: Although flexible sigmoidoscopy is an uncomfortable procedure for some patients, especially those aged 65 and older, in general it is not as bad as patients expect and most would have the test again. Therefore, rather than assuming sigmoidoscopy is too uncomfortable for all patients to tolerate as a screening test, clinicians should inform their patients about the potential benefits and risks of sigmoidoscopy and about what the patient can expect during the procedure, thus enabling the patient to make an informed decision about whether to undergo screening sigmoidoscopy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Summary of current guidelines for the cancer-related checkup: recommendations. New York: American Cancer Society, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  2. National Cancer Institute. Working guidelines for early cancer detection: rationale and supporting evidence to decrease mortality. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  3. American College of Physicians, Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project. Screening for colorectal cancer. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Woo B, Woo B, Cook EF, Weisberg M, Goldman L. Screening procedures in the asymptomatic adult. Comparison of physicians’ recommendations, patients’ desires, published guidelines, and actual practice. JAMA. 1985;254:1480–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. McPhee SJ, Richard RJ, Solkowitz SN. Performance of cancer screening in a university general internal medicine practice: comparison with the 1980 American Cancer Society guidelines. J Gen Intern Med. 1986;1:275–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rodney WM, Beaber RJ, Johnson R, Quan M. Physician compliance with colorectal cancer screening (1978–1983): the impact of flexible sigmoidoscopy. J Fam Pract. 1985;20:265–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. American Cancer Society. 1989 survey of physicians’ attitudes and practices in early cancer detection. CA. 1990;40:77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Frame PS. A critical review of adult health maintenance. Part 3: Prevention of cancer. J Fam Pract. 1986;22:511–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Frame PS. Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy: is it worthwhile? An opposing view. J Fam Pract. 1987;25:604–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bohlman TW, Katon RM, Lipshutz GR, McCool MF, Smith FW, Melnyk CS. Fiberoptic pansigmoidoscopy: an evaluation and comparison with rigid sigmoidoscopy. Gastroenterology. 1977;72:644–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Marks G, Boggs HW, Castro AF, Gathright JB, Ray JE, Salvati E. Sigmoidoscopic examinations with rigid and flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscopes in the surgeon’s office: a comparative prospective study of effectiveness in 1,012 cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 1979;22:162–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Winnan G, Berci G, Panish J, Talbot TM, Overholt BF, McCallum RW. Superiority of the flexible to the rigid sigmoidoscope in routine proctosigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:1011–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Grobe JL, Kozarek RA, Sanowski RA. Flexible versus rigid sigmoidoscopy: a comparison using an inexpensive 35-cm flexible proctosigmoidoscope. Am J Gastroenterol. 1983;78:569–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dubow RA, Katon RM, Benner KG, van Dijk CM, Koval G, Smith FW. Short (35-cm) versus long (60-cm) flexible sigmoidoscopy: a comparison of findings and tolerance in asymptomatic patients screened for colorectal neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 1985;31:305–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Zucker GM, Madura MJ, Chmiel JS, Olinger EJ. The advantages of the 30-cm flexible sigmoidoscope over the 60-cm flexible sigmoidoscope. Gastrointest Endosc. 1984;30:59–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Winawer SJ, Leidner SD, Boyle C, Kurtz RC. Comparison of flexible sigmoidoscopy with other diagnostic techniques in the diagnosis of rectocolon neoplasia. Dig Dis Sci. 1979;24:277–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sarles HE Jr, Sanowski RA, Haynes WC, Bellapravalu S. The long and short of flexible sigmoidoscopy: does it matter? Am J Gastroenterol. 1986;81:369–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Traul DG, Davis CB, Pollock JC, Scudamore HH. Flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy—the Monroe Clinic experience. A prospective study of 5,000 examinations. Dis Colon Rectum. 1983;26:161–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Winawer SJ, Miller C, Lightdale C, et al. Patient response to sigmoidoscopy. A randomized, controlled trial of rigid and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Cancer. 1987;60:1905–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fleischer DE, Goldberg SB, Browning TH, et al. Detection and surveillance of colorectal cancer. JAMA. 1989;261:580–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rodney WM. Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy: is it worthwhile? An affirmative view. J Fam Pract. 1987;25:601–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sleby JV, Friedman GD. Sigmoidoscopy in the periodic health examination of asymptomatic adults. JAMA. 1989;261:595–601.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The periodic health examination: 2. 1989 update: early detection of colorectal cancer and problem drinking. Can Med Assoc J. 1989;141:209–16. [Erratum, Can Med Assoc J. 1989;141:1126.]

    Google Scholar 

  24. Thompson RS, Michnich ME, Gray J, Friedlander L, Gilson B. Maximizing compliance with hemoccult screening for colon cancer in clinical practice. Med Care. 1986;24:904–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Burack RC, Liang J. The early detection of cancer in the primary-care setting: factors associated with the acceptance and completion of recommended procedures. Prev Med. 1987;16:739–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Macrae FA, St. John DJ, Ambikapathy A, Sharpe K, Garner JF. Factors affecting compliance in colorectal cancer screening. Results of a study performed in Ballarat. Med J Aust. 1986;144:621–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sandler RS, DeVellis BM, Blalock SJ, Holland KL. Participation of high-risk subjects in colon cancer screening. Cancer. 1989;63:2211–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Blalock SJ, DeVellis BM, Sandler RS. Participation in fecal occult blood screening: a critical review. Prev Med. 1987;16:9–18.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Becker MH, Maiman LA. Sociobehavioral determinants of compliance with health and medical care recommendations. Med Care. 1975;13:10–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hahn DL. Feasibility of sigmoidoscopic screening for bowel cancer in a primary care setting. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1989;2:25–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bat L, Pines A, Ron E, Niv Y, Arditi E, Shemesh E. A community-based program of colorectal screening in an asymptomatic population: evaluation of screening tests and compliance. Am J Gastroenterol. 1986;81:647–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Clinical Effectiveness, NCP-400, Henry Ford Hospital, 2921 West Grand Boulevard, 48202, Detroit, MI

    Bruce D. McCarthy MD, MPH

Authors
  1. Bruce D. McCarthy MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark A. Moskowitz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Received from the Section of General Internal Medicine, Evans Department of Clinical Research and the Department of Medicine, University Hospital, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McCarthy is currently at the Division of General Internal Medicine, Center for Clinical Effectiveness, Department of Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCarthy, B.D., Moskowitz, M.A. Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. J Gen Intern Med 8, 120–125 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599753

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599753

Key words

Search

Navigation