A novel strategy for improving bowel preparation based on social software‐enhanced education: A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled study

Background and Aim The compliance and timeliness of oral laxatives have always been the key factors restricting bowel preparation (BP). We have constructed a novel enhanced‐educational content and process based on social software (SS) for BP to optimize these issues. Methods A multicenter, prospecti...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology 2024-10, Vol.39 (10), p.2143-2150
Hauptverfasser: Yang, Xin, Xiao, Yufeng, Zhao, Zhifeng, Yu, Shuang, Liu, En, Xiao, Xiao, Ning, Shoubin, Zheng, Suyun, Gong, Yanan, Zhou, Lei, Liu, Weijia, Lin, Hui, Ji, Rui, Zhang, Heng, Bai, Jianying, Yang, Shiming
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background and Aim The compliance and timeliness of oral laxatives have always been the key factors restricting bowel preparation (BP). We have constructed a novel enhanced‐educational content and process based on social software (SS) for BP to optimize these issues. Methods A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted at 13 hospitals in China from December 2019 to December 2020. A total of 1774 enrollees received standard instructions for BP and were randomly assigned (1:1) to the SS group (SSG) that received a smartphone‐based enhanced‐education strategy starting 4 h before colonoscopy or the control group (CG). Results A total of 3034 consecutive outpatient colonoscopy patients were assessed for eligibility, and 1774 were enrolled and randomly assigned. Ultimately, data from 1747 (SSG vs CG: 875 vs 872) enrollees were collected. The BP adequacy rate was 92.22% (95% CI: 90.46–93.98) in the SSG vs 88.05% (95% CI: 85.91–90.18) in the CG (P = 0.005), and the total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores (6.89 ± 1.15 vs 6.67 ± 1.15, P 
ISSN:0815-9319
1440-1746
1440-1746
DOI:10.1111/jgh.16659