Information, social support and anxiety before gastrointestinal endoscopy.

School of Social Sciences and Law (Psychology Section), University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, UK.
British Journal of Health Psychology (Impact Factor: 2.7). 12/2006; 11(Pt 4):551-9. DOI: 10.1348/135910705X72514
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To examine Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) stress theory regarding the effects of the stress mediators information and perceived social support on anxiety (as the stress response) regarding gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy (as the stressor) in male and female patients of various age groups.
Non-experimental design.
Structured interviews were conducted with 113 hospital out-patients about to undergo GI endoscopy. Participants indicated their perceptions of how much support and how much clear and useful information they had received from both their general practitioner (GP) and a patient information leaflet developed in collaboration with health psychologists as well as their perceptions of how much social support they had obtained from other patients, family and friends. Anxiety was measured with a population-specific trait and state adaptation of the Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS-A).
Psychometric exploration of the HADS-A revealed a single general anxiety factor. The reliability of this factor was high, with Cronbach's alpha=0.91. The majority of the sample experienced high anxiety levels. Gender, but not age, differences emerged, showing females to be more anxious than males, F(1, 84)=5.68, p<.05. A regression model built on stress theory was tested, with anxiety as the dependent variable and 11 predictor variables. The model was significant with R(2)=0.452, F(11, 47)=3.522 and p=0.001.
The clarity, but not the amount, of information and social support from important others, but not GPs, were both mediating the stress experience of the patients by reducing their perceived anxiety.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The experience of unpleasant blood donation reactions (e.g., dizziness, nausea, and fainting) has been linked to negative attitudes about donation and decreased likelihood of repeat donation. Consequently, interventions to reduce the adverse effects of blood donation are important and likely to increase donor retention. Based on laboratory studies suggesting that social support attenuates both physical and psychological responses to stress, the present study hypothesized that the presence of a supportive person during the donation process may help reduce reactions. A final sample of 65 men and women with fewer than three prior donations was randomly assigned to either donate blood as usual or donate with a supportive research assistant. Donors in the support condition were accompanied throughout the donation process by a female research assistant who provided encouragement, made reassuring remarks, and engaged in small talk. Donors in both conditions completed a series of questions to assess anxiety, experience of prefaint reactions, and willingness to provide a future donation. Compared to standard donation controls, donors in the social support condition reported fewer prefaint reactions (F(1,61) = 9.15, p = 0.004, eta(2)= 0.13) and greater likelihood of donating again within the next year (Z =-1.70, p < 0.05, one-tailed). Relatively novice donors report reduced reactions to blood donation when accompanied by a supportive individual, suggesting that social support may be a simple strategy to enhance the donation experience and possibly increase donor retention.
    Transfusion 02/2009; 49(5):843-50. DOI:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.02057.x · 3.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: High-quality bowel preparation is a prerequisite for colonoscopy. Few studies have evaluated visual aids as a means of improving the quality of bowel preparation. To assess the effect of patient education by using cartoon visual aids on the quality of bowel preparation. An endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Tertiary referral center. Patients scheduled for screening colonoscopy in a health examination center. Patients were assigned to receive the existing verbal and written instructions (group A) or a new cartoon visual educational instruction (group B) for colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was the quality of bowel preparation, assessed by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary endpoints were the quality of bowel preparation assessed by using the Universal Preparation Assessment Scale; insertion, withdrawal, and workup times; and polyp detection rates in the 2 groups. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with poor bowel preparation according to a BBPS score less than 5. Group B exhibited better bowel preparation than group A according to BBPS scores (mean BBPS score, 6.12 ± 2.19 vs 7.44 ± 1.87, P ≤ .01; median BBPS score, 6.00 ± 0.00 vs 9.00 ± 0.00, P ≤ .01; good bowel preparation for colonoscopy, BBPS score ≥5, 81.6% vs 93.1%, P = .02). Multivariate analysis revealed that older age (odds ratio 1.07, P ≤ .01) and no use of visual aids (odds ratio 3.08, P = .02) were independent factors associated with poor bowel preparation. Single-center study. Patient education with cartoons effectively improved bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
    Gastrointestinal endoscopy 07/2012; 76(4):804-11. DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2012.05.026 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The effect of patient education on bowel preparation for colonoscopy has not been well studied. An improvement in patient understanding of the rationale for bowel preparation before colonoscopy might enhance adherence to the prescribed bowel regimen and improve bowel preparation quality. To measure the effect of a simple educational intervention on the quality of bowel preparation during colonoscopy. Prospective, single-center, endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Tertiary-care center. This study involved outpatients directly referred for screening colonoscopy. Inclusion of a visual aid depicting both clean and dirty colons in addition to standard written colonoscopy instructions. The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes included the need for repeat colonoscopy because of inadequate bowel preparation, insertion and withdrawal time, polyps detected, and patient tolerance of bowel preparation and colonoscopy. We analyzed 492 patients given a visual aid and 477 controls. The percentage of colonoscopies with a BBPS score≥5 was similar in both groups (91% visual aid vs 89% control, P=.43). The odds ratio for having a BBPS≥5 in the visual aid group was 1.24 (95% CI, 0.83-1.87) compared with controls. Other secondary outcomes were similar between groups. Single-center study. A simple card with photographs and text explaining the rationale for bowel preparation did not change the quality of bowel preparation in patients directly referred for screening colonoscopy. Future educational studies may need to include more interactive or intensive methods. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT00643682.).
    Gastrointestinal endoscopy 02/2011; 73(2):307-14. DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2010.10.013 · 4.90 Impact Factor