Govert Veldhuijzen

76 Chapter 4 REPRESENTATIVE RESULTS The earlier mentioned pilot study compared nurse instruction to CAI using the same interactive tool as used in this protocol. As the goals of this study were comparable to the outcomes used in this protocol, a short explanation of the results of the pilot are provided here in more detail. (Table 2.) Table 2. Bowel preparation scores in our earlier pilot study Nurse counselling (n, % scoring rate) Computer Assisted Instruction (n, % scoring rate) Nurse versus Computer Assisted Instruction (Mann-Whitney) Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (mean, SD) 6.07, ±2.53 5.80, ±2.90 p = 0.418 (n=115, 58.4%) (n=87, 46.3%) Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (mean, SD) 6.54, ±1.69 6.42, ±1.62 p = 0.576 (n=129, 65.5%) (n=88, 46.8%) In this pilot study 385 patients were enrolled. The CAI group contained 188 subjects. The control group receiving nurse counselling had 197 patients. The baseline characteristics were evenly distributed between CAI and nurse counselling. No significant differences were found comparing groups on bowel preparation scores, using two different scales. In the BBPS analysis nurse vs. CAI group scores were adequate: 6.54 ±1.69 vs. 6.42 ±1.62. In the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale, scores were 6.07 ±2.53 vs. 5.80 ±2.90 respectively. On secondary measures, the enquired patient comfort was significantly higher in the CAI group shortly before colonoscopy. A five-point Likert scale was used, ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Results were 4.29, ± 0.62 in the CAI group vs. 4.42, ± 0.68 in the nurse counselling group. As this rating was higher directly after nurse counselling, there is influence of the human factor for personal contact and offering emotional support. Anxiety and information re-call scores showed no statistical difference. (Table 3.) Supplemental video: An instructive video on how the computer-based education is implemented in the endoscopy unit can be found here: https://vimeo.com/141342029