Satisfaction and experience with colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review of validated patient reported outcome measures.

A Selva, C Selva, Y Álvarez-Pérez, N Torà, P López, R Terraza-Núñez, V Rodríguez, I Solà, CyDESA group
Author Information
  1. A Selva: Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Edifici Santa Fè. Parc Taulí 1, Sabadell, 08208, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. aselva@tauli.cat.
  2. C Selva: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Estudis de Psicologia i Ciències de l'Educació), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
  3. Y Álvarez-Pérez: Fundación Canaria Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Canarias (FIISC), Tenerife, Spain.
  4. N Torà: Cancer Screening Programms. Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Catalonia, Spain.
  5. P López: Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Edifici Santa Fè. Parc Taulí 1, Sabadell, 08208, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
  6. R Terraza-Núñez: Direcció General de Planificació en Salut, Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
  7. V Rodríguez: Tecnocampus, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Mataró, Catalonia, Spain.
  8. I Solà: Institute of Biomedical Research, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.

Abstract

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).

Keywords

References

  1. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2005 Aug;97(8):554-61 [PMID: 16266222]
  2. Dig Dis Sci. 2005 Oct;50(10):1860-71 [PMID: 16187188]
  3. World J Gastroenterol. 2017 May 28;23(20):3632-3642 [PMID: 28611516]
  4. BMC Public Health. 2014 Mar 07;14:238 [PMID: 24606951]
  5. BMC Public Health. 2017 Aug 1;18(1):81 [PMID: 28764667]
  6. Qual Life Res. 2021 Aug;30(8):2197-2218 [PMID: 33818733]
  7. Eur Psychiatry. 2017 Jul;44:104-124 [PMID: 28641213]
  8. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42 [PMID: 17161752]
  9. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Jan 30;16(3): [PMID: 30704126]
  10. Breast. 2018 Jun;39:33-38 [PMID: 29533883]
  11. Patient. 2016 Feb;9(1):27-34 [PMID: 26714490]
  12. Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157 [PMID: 29435801]
  13. Gut. 2015 Oct;64(10):1637-49 [PMID: 26041752]
  14. Online J Issues Nurs. ;21(1):1 [PMID: 27852212]
  15. Cancer Causes Control. 2006 May;17(4):439-47 [PMID: 16596296]
  16. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Apr;17(2):268-74 [PMID: 20874835]
  17. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016 Dec;15(4):298-313 [PMID: 27133893]
  18. Int J Dermatol. 2020 Aug;59(8):902-914 [PMID: 32153017]
  19. Dig Liver Dis. 2014 Jan;46(1):82-6 [PMID: 24011791]
  20. Trials. 2016 Sep 13;17(1):449 [PMID: 27618914]
  21. Health Econ Rev. 2016 Dec;6(1):18 [PMID: 27209027]
  22. Qual Life Res. 2009 Oct;18(8):1115-23 [PMID: 19711195]
  23. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD001216 [PMID: 17253456]
  24. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Dec;46(12):1417-32 [PMID: 8263569]
  25. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(32):1-244 [PMID: 12925269]
  26. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-91 [PMID: 11124735]
  27. Patient. 2012;5(2):79-87 [PMID: 22428752]
  28. Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1 [PMID: 25554246]
  29. Health Promot J Austr. 2012 Aug;23(2):122-8 [PMID: 23088473]
  30. Endoscopy. 2012 Sep;44 Suppl 3:SE1-8 [PMID: 23012113]
  31. Psychooncology. 2009 Jul;18(7):727-34 [PMID: 19035468]
  32. Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 23;4:97 [PMID: 26202326]
  33. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Jan;15(1):23-34 [PMID: 24314615]
  34. N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 19;369(12):1106-14 [PMID: 24047060]
  35. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2019 Dec 5;42(3):361-363 [PMID: 31859276]
  36. Am J Med. 2006 Sep;119(9):791-9 [PMID: 16945615]
  37. Womens Health Issues. 2008 Mar-Apr;18(2):110-7 [PMID: 18319148]
  38. BMJ Open. 2013 Jan 03;3(1): [PMID: 23293244]
  39. Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1159-1170 [PMID: 29550964]
  40. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2005 Nov;53(5):549-67 [PMID: 16434928]
  41. Eur Radiol. 2007 Sep;17(9):2286-93 [PMID: 17522866]
  42. Arch Intern Med. 2000 Jun 26;160(12):1790-6 [PMID: 10871972]
  43. Br J Cancer. 2014 Aug 26;111(5):970-5 [PMID: 24983363]
  44. World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jul 28;23(28):5086-5096 [PMID: 28811705]
  45. Gerodontology. 2018 Apr 3;: [PMID: 29611876]
  46. Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1171-1179 [PMID: 29260445]
  47. Brain Sci. 2020 Mar 19;10(3): [PMID: 32204563]
  48. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2020 Jun;72(6):798-805 [PMID: 30980507]

MeSH Term

Colorectal Neoplasms
Early Detection of Cancer
Humans
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Patient Satisfaction
Personal Satisfaction
Quality of Life
Surveys and Questionnaires

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0satisfactionscreeningcancercolorectalquestionnairesexperiencevalidatedmeasuressystematicPatientpatientreviewquestionnairereportedoutcomePROMsmeasuringstudiestwoconductedCOSMINmethodologicalqualitymeasuredcolonoscopynon-screeningCSSQPPost-ProcedureBACKGROUND:candetermineadherenceprogramsevaluationexistobjectiveidentifycriticallyappraiseMETHODS:followingCOnsensus-basedStandardsselectionhealthMeasurementINstrumentsmethodologysearchesMEDLINEEMBASEPsychINFOCINAHLBiblioPROassessedmeasurementpropertiesaccordingguidelinesreviewsPROSPEROregistrationnumber:CRD42019118527RESULTS:included80used755Fourendoscopy:contextsigmoidoscopyendoscopyOnebowelpreparationvariableevidencesufficientcontentvalidityinternalconsistencywere:safetyendoscopicproceduresCONCLUSIONS:showsminorityexistingidentifiedhighpotentialuseSatisfactionscreening:ColorectalInstrumentsPROMQuestionnaires

Similar Articles

Cited By