JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Previous research indicates that patients and their families have many questions about colonoscopy that are not fully answered by existing resources. We developed revised forms on colonoscopy bowel preparation and on the procedure itself.

Objective:

Because the goal of the revised materials is to have improved information relative to currently available information, we were interested in how revised information compared to what’s currently available in terms of information quality and patient preference.

Methods:

In two studies, participants were asked to review one at a time the Revised and Current versions of Colonoscopy bowel preparation instructions and About Colonoscopy (order of administration was randomly counterbalanced). They were asked to rate each form along the following dimensions: amount, clarity, trustworthiness, readability/understandability, how new or familiar the information was, and reassurance. These ratings used 5-point Likert-type scales. Participants were also asked which form they preferred and four questions about why they preferred it.

Results:

The Study 1 and Study 2 samples were similar. Overall in Study 1, 62% preferred the Revised form, 28% preferred the Current form, and 7% were not sure. Overall in Study 2, 50.5% preferred the Revised form, 31% preferred the Current form, and 18% were not sure. Almost 75% of those in Study 1 who received the Revised form first, preferred it, compared to less than half of those who received it first in Study 2. In Study 1, 75% of those without previous colonoscopy experience preferred the Revised form, compared to more than half of those who had previously received a colonoscopy. The Study 1 regression analysis demonstrated that participants were more likely to prefer the Revised form if they had viewed it first and no previous experience with colonoscopy was also associated with higher preference for the Revised form. In Study 2, none of the six variables assessed were associated with preference for the Revised form. In comparing the two forms head-to-head, participants who preferred the Revised form in Study 1 rated it as clearer compared to those that preferred the Current form and their ratings of clarity. Finally, many participants who preferred the Revised form indicated in the open-ended questions that they liked it because it had more information than the Current form, and that it had good visuals.

Conclusions:

This study is one of the first to evaluate two different patient education resources in a head-to-head comparison using the same participants in a within-subjects design. This approach was useful in comparing revised educational information to resources already used in the area. Moving forward, this knowledge translation approach of a head-to-head comparison of two different information sources could be taken to develop and refine information sources on other health issues.