Satisfaction and experience with colorectal cancer screening
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...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2021 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ddd.uab.cat:264724 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://ddd.uab.cat/record/264724 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.1186/s12874-021-01430-7 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Patient satisfaction Patient experience Colorectal cancer screening Systematic review Patient reported outcome measures PROM Instruments Questionnaires |
| Resumo: | 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). |
|---|