Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Interactive Video Educational Tool Does Not Improve the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Editorial to this article was published on 25 August 2021

Abstract

Background/Aims

Inadequate bowel preparation leads to poor outcomes in colonoscopy. Prior investigations have demonstrated improved bowel preparation with pre-procedural educational videos. We aimed to determine whether an interactive, online educational video could improve bowel preparation scores in an outpatient population.

Methods

We performed a prospective, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial at our hospital-based outpatient endoscopy center. Eligible patients were randomized to two groups. Both groups received standard verbal and written instructions, while the intervention group also received access to an interactive, online video. The primary outcome was improvement in the bowel preparation scores graded using the Boston bowel prep score (BBPS). Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate, total number of polyps detected, patient satisfaction, pre-procedure anxiety, and complication rates.

Results

The difference in BBPS in the intervention group (8) compared to the control group (7.6) did not meet statistical significance in our primary outcome of improvement in BBPS (p = 0.076). However, on subgroup analysis, there was a statistically significant improvement in BBPS in the intervention group among African Americans (p = 0.007) and patients older than 65 (p = 0.026). Those in the intervention arm rated pre-procedural materials “very easy” to understand significantly more often than in the control arm (p = 0.018).

Conclusions

Use of an interactive, online educational video for bowel preparation did not lead to improvement in overall BBPS. However, among patients at higher risk for inadequate bowel preparation, such as African Americans and elderly patients, there may be a benefit.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Early DS et al. Appropriate use of GI endoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endosc 2012;75:1127–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Joseph DA et al. Colorectal cancer screening: estimated future colonoscopy need and current volume and capacity. Cancer 2016;122:2479–2486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:76–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen SM, Wexner SD, Binderow SR et al. Prospective, randomized, endoscopic-blinded trial comparing precolonoscopy bowel cleansing methods. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:689–696.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ness RM, Manam R, Hoen H et al. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:1797–1802.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kolts BE, Lyles WE, Achem SR et al. A comparison of the effectiveness and patient tolerance of oral sodium phosphate, castor oil, and standard electrolyte lavage for colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88:1218–1223.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Marshall JB, Pineda JJ, Barthel JS et al. Prospective, randomized trial comparing sodium phosphate solution with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 1993;39:631–634.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:72–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chokshi RV, Hovis CE, Hollander T et al. Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:1197–1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European panel of appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:378–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ben-Horin S, Bar-Meir S, Avidan B. The impact of colon cleanliness assessment on endoscopists’ recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2680–2685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Murphy D, Jenks M, McCool R et al. A systematic review and cost analysis of repeat colonoscopies due to inadequate bowel cleansing in five European countries. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2019;19:701–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Prakash SR, Verma S, McGowan J et al. Improving the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation using an educational video. Can J Gastroenterol 2013;27:696–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M et al. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:1207–1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wu KL, Rayner CK, Chuah SK et al. Impact of low-residue diet on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2011;54:107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Verma S, Fogel J, Beyda DJ et al. Chronic methadone use, poor bowel visualization and failed colonoscopy: a preliminary study. World J Gastroenterol 2012;18:4350–4356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Appannagari A, Mangla S, Liao C, Reddy KG, Kupfer SS. Risk factors for inadequate colonoscopy bowel preparations in African Americans and whites at an urban medical center. South Med J 2014;107:220–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tae JW, Lee JC, Hong SJ et al. Impact of patient education with cartoon visual aids on the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:804–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu X, Luo H, Zhang L et al. Telephone-based re-education on the day before colonoscopy improves the quality of bowel preparation and the polyp detection rate: a prospective, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised, controlled study. Gut 2014;63:125–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lorenzo-Zúñiga V, Moreno de Vega V, Marín I et al. Improving the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation using a smart phone application: a randomized trial. Dig Endosc 2015;27:590–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kang X, Zhao L, Leung F et al. Delivery of instructions via mobile social media app increases quality of bowel preparation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;14:429-435.e3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee YJ, Kim ES, Choi JH et al. Impact of reinforced education by telephone and short message service on the quality of bowel preparation: a randomized controlled study. Endoscopy 2015;47:1018–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Guo X, Yang Z, Zhao L et al. Enhanced instructions improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:90-97.e6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Park JS, Kim MS, Kim H et al. A randomized controlled trial of an educational video to improve quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. BMC Gastroenterol 2016;16:64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hayat U, Lee PJ, Lopez R, Vargo JJ, Rizk MK. Online educational video improves bowel preparation and reduces the need for repeat colonoscopy within three years. Am J Med 2016;129:1219.e1211-1219.e1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu C, Song X, Hao H. Educational video followed by retelling bowel preparation process to improve colonoscopy bowel preparation quality: a prospective nursing intervention study. Med Sci Monit 2018;24:6029–6037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jeon SC, Kim JH, Kim SJ et al. Effect of sending educational video clips via smartphone mobile messenger on bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Clin Endosc 2019;52:53–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pillai A, Menon R, Oustecky D, Ahmad A. Educational colonoscopy video enhances bowel preparation quality and comprehension in an inner city population. J Clin Gastroenterol 2018;52:515–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rice SC, Higginbotham T, Dean MJ, Slaughter JC, Yachimski PS, Obstein KL. Video on diet before outpatient colonoscopy does not improve quality of bowel preparation: a prospective, randomized, Controlled Trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111:1564–1571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Ann Int Med 2010;152. Epub 24 March

  31. Hutchings HA, Cheung WY, Alrubaiy L et al. Development and validation of the gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire (GESQ). Endoscopy 2015;47:1137–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston bowel preparation scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:686–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Walter B, Klare P, Strehle K et al. Improving the quality and acceptance of colonoscopy preparation by reinforced patient education with short message service: results from a randomized, multicenter study (PERICLES-II). Gastrointestinal Endosc 2019;89:506–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lebwohl FK, Glick M et al. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Clin Endosc 2011;73:1207–1214.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Guo R, Wang YJ, Liu M et al. The effect of quality of segmental bowel preparation on adenoma detection rate. BMC Gastroenterol 2019;19:119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Ave., Campus, Box 8124, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    Ted B. Walker, Tricia A. Hengehold, Kevin Garza, Benjamin D. Rogers & Dayna Early

Authors
  1. Ted B. Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tricia A. Hengehold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin Garza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Benjamin D. Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dayna Early
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DSE is the guarantor of the article. Author roles: TBW contributed to study concept and design, data collection, analysis, manuscript preparation, and review; TAH contributed to data collection, analysis, and manuscript preparation; KPG contributed to data collection and manuscript preparation; BDR contributed to study concept, analysis, manuscript preparation, and review; and DSE contributed to study concept and design, data analysis, manuscript preparation, and critical review of manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dayna Early.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest exist.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

An editorial commenting on this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-021-07222-9.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Link to view the interactive educational video

https://rise.articulate.com/share/x7Cu6Yh1BSRk5uqIBA2kd7STyYzmcLYa

Appendix 2: Modified GESQ (Colonoscopy Survey)

figure a
figure b
figure c

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walker, T.B., Hengehold, T.A., Garza, K. et al. An Interactive Video Educational Tool Does Not Improve the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Study. Dig Dis Sci 67, 2347–2357 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-021-07215-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-021-07215-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation