Submitted:
30 April 2024
Posted:
01 May 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Procedures
2.2. Study Design
2.3. Population
- Aged ≥20 years.
- Able to communicate in Taiwanese or Mandarin.
- No visual or hearing impairments.
- Own an Android-based mobile device.
- No severe mental or cognitive impairments and able to comply with the study requirements.
2.4. Research Tool (Mobile Health app)
2.5. Endoscopists’ Qualifications
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Participants’ Characteristics
3.2. Bowel Preparation Quality
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021;71(3):209-249. [CrossRef]
- Plackett, R., Kaushal, A., Kassianos, A. P., Cross, A., Lewins, D., Sheringham, J., ... & von Wagner, C. (2020). Use of social media to promote cancer screening and early diagnosis: Scoping Review. Journal of medical Internet research, 22(11), e21582. [CrossRef]
- Vos, S. C., Sutton, J., Gibson, C. B., & Butts, C. T. (2019). Celebrity cancer on Twitter: mapping a novel opportunity for cancer prevention. Cancer Control, 26(1), 1073274819825826. [CrossRef]
- Shams-White, M. M., Brockton, N. T., Mitrou, P., Romaguera, D., Brown, S., Bender, A., ... & Reedy, J. (2019). Operationalizing the 2018 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) cancer prevention recommendations: a standardized scoring system. Nutrients, 11(7), 1572. [CrossRef]
- Shams-White, M. M., Romaguera, D., Mitrou, P., Reedy, J., Bender, A., & Brockton, N. T. (2020). Further Guidance in Implementing the Standardized 2018 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) Score. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers, 29(5), 889-894. [CrossRef]
- Ciuti, G., Skonieczna-Żydecka, K., Marlicz, W., Iacovacci, V., Liu, H., Stoyanov, D., ... & Koulaouzidis, A. (2020). Frontiers of robotic colonoscopy: a comprehensive review of robotic colonoscopes and technologies. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(6), 1648. [CrossRef]
- Patel N, Kashyap S, Mori A. Bowel Preparation. 2020 Aug 22. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing;2021 Jan–. PMID: 30570989.
- Sharara, A. I., & Daher, H. B. (2019). Bowel cleansing strategies after suboptimal bowel preparation. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 17(7), 1239-1241. [CrossRef]
- Nam, S. J., Park, S. C., Lee, S. J., Lee, S. H., Kim, J. H., Bang, C. S., & Seo, H. I. (2022). Randomized trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol–ascorbic acid for bowel cleansing in elderly people. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 37(2), 319-326. [CrossRef]
- Zad, M., Do, C. N., Heffernan, A., Johnston, L., & Al-Ansari, M. (2020, Apr). Factors affecting bowel preparation adequacy and procedural time. JGH Open, 4(2), 206-214. [CrossRef]
- Hung, S. Y., Chen, H. C., & Chen, W. T. (2020, Mar 27). A Randomized Trial Comparing the Bowel Cleansing Efficacy of Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate and Polyethylene Glycol/Bisacodyl (The Bowklean Study). Sci Rep, 10(1), 5604. [CrossRef]
- Chen, C., Shi, M., Liao, Z., Chen, W., Wu, Y., & Tian, X. (2022). Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Digestive Endoscopy. [CrossRef]
- Donovan, K., Manem, N., Miller, D., Yodice, M., Kabbach, G., Feustel, P., & Tadros, M. (2021). The Impact of Patient Education Level on Split-Dose Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation for CRC Prevention. Journal of Cancer Education, 1-6. [CrossRef]
- Ye, Z., Chen, J., Xuan, Z., Gao, M., & Yang, H. (2020). Educational video improves bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of palliative medicine, 9(3), 671-680. [CrossRef]
- Hernández, G., Gimeno-García, A. Z., & Quintero, E. (2019). Strategies to improve inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Frontiers in medicine, 6, 245. [CrossRef]
- Niedermaier, T., Amitay, E. L., Gies, A., Weigl, K., Hoffmeister, M., & Brenner, H. (2020). Impact of Inadequate Bowel Cleansing on Colonoscopic Findings in Routine Screening Practice. Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology, 11(4), e00169. [CrossRef]
- Walter, B., Frank, R., Ludwig, L., Dikopoulos, N., Mayr, M., Neu, B., ... & Meining, A. (2021). Smartphone application to reinforce education increases high-quality preparation for colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies in a randomized trial. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 19(2), 331-338. [CrossRef]
- Gandhi, K., Tofani, C., Sokach, C., Patel, D., Kastenberg, D., & Daskalakis, C. (2018). Patient characteristics associated with quality of colonoscopy preparation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 16(3), 357-369.
- El Benny, M., Kabakian-Khasholian, T., El-Jardali, F., & Bardus, M. (2021). Application of the eHealth literacy model in digital health interventions: scoping review. Journal of medical Internet research, 23(6), e23473. [CrossRef]
- Smith, B., & Magnani, J. W. (2019). New technologies, new disparities: The intersection of electronic health and digital health literacy. International journal of cardiology, 292, 280-282. [CrossRef]
- Sewitch, M. J., Fallone, C. A., Ghali, P., & Lee, G. E. (2019). What Patients Want in a Smartphone App That Supports Colonoscopy Preparation: Qualitative Study to Inform a User-Centered Smartphone App. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7(7), e12242. [CrossRef]
- El Bizri, M., El Sheikh, M., Lee, G. E., & Sewitch, M. J. (2021). Mobile health technologies supporting colonoscopy preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PloS one, 16(3), e0248679. [CrossRef]
- Greenhalgh, T., Koh, G. C. H., & Car, J. (2020). Covid-19: a remote assessment in primary care. Bmj, 368. [CrossRef]
- Thulesius, H. (2020). Increased importance of digital medicine and eHealth during the Covid-19 pandemic. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 38(2). [CrossRef]
- Ming, L. C., Untong, N., Aliudin, N. A., Osili, N., Kifli, N., Tan, C. S., ... & Goh, H. P. (2020). Mobile health apps on COVID-19 launched in the early days of the pandemic: content analysis and review. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 8(9), e19796. [CrossRef]
- Alanzi, T.(2021). A review of mobile applications available in the app and google play stores used during the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 14, 45. [CrossRef]
- Guo, B., Zuo, X., Li, Z., Liu, J., Xu, N., Li, X., & Zhu, A. (2020). Improving the quality of bowel preparation through an app for inpatients undergoing colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(4), 1037-1045. [CrossRef]
- Wen, M. C., Kau, K., Huang, S. S., Huang, W. H., Tsai, L. Y., Tsai, T. Y., & Tsay, S. L. (2020). Smartphone education improves embarrassment, bowel preparation, and satisfaction with care in patients receiving colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trail. Medicine, 99(46).
- Walter, B., Schmid, R., & von Delius, S. (2017). A smartphone app for improvement of colonoscopy preparation (ColoprAPP): Development and feasibility study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 5(9), e138. [CrossRef]
- Shin SY, Ga KS, Kim IY, et al. Predictive factors for inadequate bowel preparation using low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid for an outpatient colonoscopy. Scientific Reports. 2019;9(1). [CrossRef]
- Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019. Endoscopy. 2019;51(08):775-794. [CrossRef]
- Lund, M., Trads, M., Njor, S. H., Erichsen, R., & Andersen, B. (2019). Quality indicators for screening colonoscopy and colonoscopist performance and the subsequent risk of interval colorectal cancer: a systematic review. JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports, 17(11), 2265-2300. [CrossRef]
- Muslim, O. T., & Al-Obaidi, H. O. (2021). Cecal and ilial intubation rates in colonoscopy: Comparative study. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology= Journal de la Therapeutique des Populations et de la Pharmacologie Clinique, 28(2), e1-e6.
- Siau, K., Hodson, J., Ravindran, S., Rutter, M. D., Iacucci, M., & Dunckley, P. (2019). Variability in cecal intubation rate by calculation method: a call for standardization of key performance indicators in endoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 89(5), 1026-1036. [CrossRef]
- Liu, C., Gao, H., Yuan, X., Zhang, Z., Xie, J., Yu, C., & Xu, L. (2022). Minimal water exchange by the air-water valve versus left water exchange in unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy, (AAM). [CrossRef]
- Soeder, M., Turshudzhyan, A., Rosenberg, L., & Tadros, M. (2022). High-Quality Colonoscopy: A Review of Quality Indicators and Best Practices. Gastroenterology Insights, 13(2), 162-172. [CrossRef]
- Shamim, S., Andresen, Y. L. M., Vind Thaysen, H., Hovdenak Jakobsen, I., Nielsen, J., Kjaergaard Danielsen, A., & Konradsen, H. (2021). Experiences of patients undergoing bowel preparation and colonoscopy: a qualitative longitudinal study. Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 349-358. [CrossRef]
- Tontini, G. E., Prada, A., Sferrazza, S., Ciprandi, G., & Vecchi, M. (2021). The unmet needs for identifying the ideal bowel preparation. JGH open, 5(10), 1135-1141. [CrossRef]
- Butterly, L. F., Nadel, M. R., Anderson, J. C., Robinson, C. M., Weiss, J. E., Lieberman, D., & Shapiro, J. A. (2020). Impact of colonoscopy bowel preparation quality on follow-up interval recommendations for average-risk patients with normal screening colonoscopies: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Journal of clinical gastroenterology.
- Thorlacius, H., Wurm, G., Nemeth, A., & Toth, E. (2017). Koloskopier måste kvalitetssäkras.
- Arslanca, G., & Aygün, M. (2022). Effect of nurse-performed enhanced patient education on colonoscopy bowel preparation quality. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 30.
- Janahiraman, S., Tay, C. Y., Lee, J. M., Lim, W. L., Khiew, C. H., Ishak, I., ... & Chew, C. K. (2020). Effect of an intensive patient educational programme on the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a single-blind randomised controlled trial. BMJ open gastroenterology, 7(1), e000376. [CrossRef]
- Alvarez-Gonzalez, M. A., Sánchez, M. Á. P., Cabredo, B. B., García-Rodríguez, A., Larramona, S. F., Nogales, O., ... & Gimeno-García, A. Z. (2020). Educational nurse-led telephone intervention shortly before colonoscopy as a salvage strategy after previous bowel preparation failure: a multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy, 52(11), 1026-1035. [CrossRef]
- Park, J., & Kim, T. O. (2019). How can we achieve good compliance for bowel preparation?. Clinical endoscopy, 52(1), 3-4. [CrossRef]
- Kang, X., Zhao, L., Leung, F., Luo, H., Wang, L., Wu, J., ... & Guo, X. (2016). Delivery of instructions via mobile social media app increases quality of bowel preparation. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 14(3), 429-435. [CrossRef]
- Wang, S. L., Wang, Q., Yao, J., Zhao, S. B., Wang, L. S., Li, Z. S., & Bai, Y. (2019). Effect of WeChat and short message service on bowel preparation: an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 31(2), 170-177. [CrossRef]
- Desai, M., Nutalapati, V., Bansal, A., Buckles, D., Bonino, J., Olyaee, M., & Rastogi, A. (2019). Use of smartphone applications to improve quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy international open, 7(02), E216-E224. [CrossRef]
- Gimeno-García AZ, Federica Benítez-Zafra, Nicolás-Pérez D, Hernández-Guerra M. Colon Bowel Preparation in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Is There Potential for Enhancing Colon Bowel Cleansing? Medicina-lithuania. 2023;59(10):1834-1834.
- Barakat-Johnson, M., Jones, A., Burger, M., Leong, T., Frotjold, A., Randall, S., ... & Coyer, F. (2022). Reshaping wound care: Evaluation of an artificial intelligence app to improve wound assessment and management amid the COVID-19 pandemic. International Wound Journal, 19(6), 1561-1577. [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Y., Zhang, D. F., Wu, H. L., Fu, P. Y., Feng, L., Zhuang, K., ... & Zhou, P. H. (2023). Improving bowel preparation for colonoscopy with a smartphone application driven by artificial intelligence. NPJ Digital Medicine, 6(1), 41. [CrossRef]


| Variable | All samples (N = 80) |
Group | pa | ||||
| Experimental (n = 40) |
Control (n = 40) |
||||||
| Male, n (%) | 41 (51.2) | 17 (42.5) | 24 (60) | 0.12 | |||
| Age (years), n (%) | 0.58 | ||||||
| 20–30 | 2 (2.5) | 2 (5.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| 31–40 | 11 (13.8) | 5 (12.5) | 6 (15.0) | ||||
| 41–50 | 17 (21.3) | 6 (15.0) | 11 (27.5) | ||||
| 51–60 | 24 (30.0) | 15 (37.5) | 9 (22.5) | ||||
| 61–70 | 10 (12.5) | 7 (17.5) | 3 (7.5) | ||||
| 71–80 | 16 (20.0) | 5 (12.5) | 11 (27.5) | ||||
| BMI, mean ± SD | 23.79 ± 3.97 | 22.58 ± 3.22 | 25.0 ± 4.72 | 0.02* | |||
| Education level, n (%) | 0.16 | ||||||
| Elementary school | 6 (7.5) | 3 (7.5) | 3 (7.5) | ||||
| Junior high school | 8 (10.0) | 2 (5.0) | 6 (15.0) | ||||
| High school/ vocational |
17 (21.3) | 6 (15.0) | 11 (27.5) | ||||
| College/university | 36 (45.0) | 22 (55.0) | 14 (35.0) | ||||
| Research institute or above | 13 (16.3) | 7 (17.5) | 6 (15.0) | ||||
| Married, n (%) | 61 (76.25) | 31 (77.5) | 30 (75.0) | 0.23 | |||
| Constipated, n (%) | 17 (21.25) | 10 (25) | 7 (17.5) | 0.27 | |||
| Abdominal surgery, n (%) | 28 (35.0) | 13 (32.5) | 15 (37.5) | 0.64 | |||
| Diabetes, n (%) | 12 (15.0) | 5 (12.5) | 7 (17.5) | 0.54 | |||
| Family history of colorectal cancer, n (%) |
14 (17.5) | 7 (17.5) | 7 (17.5) | 1.00 | |||
| Colonoscopy experience, n (%) |
48 (60.0) | 26 (65.0) | 22 (55.0) | 0.51 | |||
| Group | P | |||||
| Experimental | Control | |||||
| n | % | n | % | 0.016* | ||
| Endoscopist’s judgment of bowel preparation quality | Poor | 0 | 0.0 | 7 | 17.5 | |
| Fair | 10 | 25.0 | 13 | 32.5 | ||
| Good | 26 | 65.0 | 19 | 47.5 | ||
| Excellent | 4 | 10.0 | 1 | 2.5 | ||
| Total | 40 | 100.0 | 40 | 100.0 | ||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).