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

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).

Tools for measuring client experiences and satisfaction with healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of measurement properties

“…Hence, patient satisfaction is an outcome of their experience [ 10 ]. Despite their differences, both measures are used to benchmark hospitals' performance, monitor health care quality, and assess the effectiveness of interventions [ 53 ].…”

Determining efficacy of dynamic multimedia bowel preparation instructions versus standard instructions on adenoma detection and patient reported measures (DIGICLEAN trial): a study protocol for a multicentre, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised controlled trial

“…Various validated patient-reported measures have been developed for bowel cancer and colonoscopy, but fewer for bowel preparation. 14 A systematic review of patient-reported experience measures for colonoscopy and meta-ethnography identified five key patient experience domains that should be encapsulated in a patient-reported measures set: health motivation, discomfort, access to information, a caring clinician-patient relationship and patient understanding. These domains need to be considered temporally, occurring before the procedure, during the procedure and after the procedure.…”

Patient-Reported Experience Measures for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography

“…Brown and colleagues identified endoscopy-specific instruments which were developed and used in studies to evaluate how the patients experienced different endoscopic procedures [ 12 ]. In addition, a recent review identified instruments which aimed to measure patient-reported satisfaction and experiences regarding CRC screening, including tests, and relevant procedures such as colonoscopy [ 13 ]. However, questions have been raised whether existing instruments succeed in measuring how patients experience undergoing a colonoscopy, since descriptions of patient involvement during instrument development are missing [ 12 , 14 ] and validation of them is sparse [ 13 ].…”

“…Therefore, a synthesis of qualitative research can contribute to compiled knowledge of how adult patients experience undergoing a colonoscopy procedure. In addition, existing instruments aiming to measure patient-reported experiences in connection with colonoscopy have been criticised due to the lack of patient input during instrument development [ 12 , 14 ] and absent validation [ 13 ]. For that reason, a comparison between empirical evidence from a qualitative synthesis and existing instruments is justified.…”