五种不同粪便免疫化学测试患者的困难

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jeanette M Daly, Yinghui Xu, Barcey T Levy
{"title":"五种不同粪便免疫化学测试患者的困难","authors":"Jeanette M Daly, Yinghui Xu, Barcey T Levy","doi":"10.3122/jabfm.2023.230469R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>At least 26 different fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are available for use in the US. Liquid vial and card collection devices are available.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>1) assess participant's difficulties with and preferences for types of FITs; 2) assess whether errors in FIT collection were associated with FIT collection difficulty; 3) identify factors associated with difficulty with FIT stool collection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective individuals scheduled for a colonoscopy were invited to participate in a study comparing test characteristics of 5 FITs. A product questionnaire asked participants about ease of collection and difficulties.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2,148 participants; mean age 63 years; 63% females, 83% Whites, and 19% Hispanics. 1265 (61%) preferred use of a liquid vial versus 181 (9%) the card. 49% had no difficulty with Hemoccult ICT, and 66 to 70% had no difficulty with the liquid vials. Difficulties with Hemoccult ICT included: being messy (21%), collection window too small (19%), and getting sample on stick (8%). Difficulties with the liquid vials included difficulty probing or scraping the stool (5% to 8%) and unclear directions (3%). In a multivariable model, the perceived difficulty in FIT collection was significantly higher for Hemoccult ICT compared with OC-Auto Micro (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.05), and it was significantly high for those with a FIT error (AOR, 3.90).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Participants strongly preferred a liquid vial compared with a card. Perceived difficulty was significantly associated with FIT errors and with FIT brand. Medical offices providing FITs should ensure that patients understand the task of FIT collection, so that errors are minimized.</p>","PeriodicalId":50018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","volume":"37 6","pages":"1014-1026"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patients' Difficulties with Five Different Fecal Immunochemical Tests.\",\"authors\":\"Jeanette M Daly, Yinghui Xu, Barcey T Levy\",\"doi\":\"10.3122/jabfm.2023.230469R1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>At least 26 different fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are available for use in the US. Liquid vial and card collection devices are available.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>1) assess participant's difficulties with and preferences for types of FITs; 2) assess whether errors in FIT collection were associated with FIT collection difficulty; 3) identify factors associated with difficulty with FIT stool collection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective individuals scheduled for a colonoscopy were invited to participate in a study comparing test characteristics of 5 FITs. A product questionnaire asked participants about ease of collection and difficulties.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2,148 participants; mean age 63 years; 63% females, 83% Whites, and 19% Hispanics. 1265 (61%) preferred use of a liquid vial versus 181 (9%) the card. 49% had no difficulty with Hemoccult ICT, and 66 to 70% had no difficulty with the liquid vials. Difficulties with Hemoccult ICT included: being messy (21%), collection window too small (19%), and getting sample on stick (8%). Difficulties with the liquid vials included difficulty probing or scraping the stool (5% to 8%) and unclear directions (3%). In a multivariable model, the perceived difficulty in FIT collection was significantly higher for Hemoccult ICT compared with OC-Auto Micro (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.05), and it was significantly high for those with a FIT error (AOR, 3.90).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Participants strongly preferred a liquid vial compared with a card. Perceived difficulty was significantly associated with FIT errors and with FIT brand. Medical offices providing FITs should ensure that patients understand the task of FIT collection, so that errors are minimized.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine\",\"volume\":\"37 6\",\"pages\":\"1014-1026\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230469R1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230469R1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在美国,至少有26种不同的粪便免疫化学试验(FITs)可供使用。液体瓶和卡片收集设备是可用的。目的:1)评估参与者对fit类型的困难和偏好;2)评估FIT收集错误是否与FIT收集难度相关;3)确定与FIT粪便收集困难相关的因素。方法:计划进行结肠镜检查的前瞻性个体被邀请参加一项比较5种FITs测试特征的研究。一份产品调查问卷询问了参与者收集的难易程度和困难程度。结果:2148名受试者;平均年龄63岁;63%的女性,83%的白人和19%的西班牙裔。1265人(61%)更喜欢使用液体小瓶,而181人(9%)更喜欢使用卡片。49%的患者使用隐血ICT没有困难,66 ~ 70%的患者使用小瓶没有困难。隐血ICT的困难包括:脏乱(21%)、采集窗口太小(19%)和取样贴(8%)。使用液体小瓶的困难包括难以探查或刮拭粪便(5%至8%)和不清楚方向(3%)。在多变量模型中,与OC-Auto Micro相比,Hemoccult ICT在FIT收集方面的感知难度显著更高(调整后的优势比[AOR], 4.05),并且对于FIT错误的患者来说,感知难度也显著高(AOR, 3.90)。结论:与卡片相比,参与者更喜欢小瓶液体。感知困难与FIT错误和FIT品牌显著相关。提供FIT的医疗机构应确保患者了解收集FIT的任务,以尽量减少错误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patients' Difficulties with Five Different Fecal Immunochemical Tests.

Background: At least 26 different fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are available for use in the US. Liquid vial and card collection devices are available.

Objectives: 1) assess participant's difficulties with and preferences for types of FITs; 2) assess whether errors in FIT collection were associated with FIT collection difficulty; 3) identify factors associated with difficulty with FIT stool collection.

Methods: Prospective individuals scheduled for a colonoscopy were invited to participate in a study comparing test characteristics of 5 FITs. A product questionnaire asked participants about ease of collection and difficulties.

Results: 2,148 participants; mean age 63 years; 63% females, 83% Whites, and 19% Hispanics. 1265 (61%) preferred use of a liquid vial versus 181 (9%) the card. 49% had no difficulty with Hemoccult ICT, and 66 to 70% had no difficulty with the liquid vials. Difficulties with Hemoccult ICT included: being messy (21%), collection window too small (19%), and getting sample on stick (8%). Difficulties with the liquid vials included difficulty probing or scraping the stool (5% to 8%) and unclear directions (3%). In a multivariable model, the perceived difficulty in FIT collection was significantly higher for Hemoccult ICT compared with OC-Auto Micro (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.05), and it was significantly high for those with a FIT error (AOR, 3.90).

Conclusion: Participants strongly preferred a liquid vial compared with a card. Perceived difficulty was significantly associated with FIT errors and with FIT brand. Medical offices providing FITs should ensure that patients understand the task of FIT collection, so that errors are minimized.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.90%
发文量
168
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1988, the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine ( JABFM ) is the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). Believing that the public and scientific communities are best served by open access to information, JABFM makes its articles available free of charge and without registration at www.jabfm.org. JABFM is indexed by Medline, Index Medicus, and other services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信