PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7501721

Psychological considerations in colonoscopy.

P J Wagner·J B Kenrick·T Rojas·L D Woodward
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In summary, psychological issues around the colonoscopy procedure have not yet been fully studied or even formulated. The framework taken here is to consider psychological preconditions to disease, psychological barriers to screening, and ways to maximize the psychological strength of patients when presenting serious diagnoses. Two common themes are present in this review. First, the idea of hopelessness and loss of personal control is present throughout the research in terms of personality predispositions, decisions to seek care, and outcome of disease when present. Physicians need to address the question, what can I do to maximize the hopefulness of this person before, during, and after screening? Are we encouraging an optimistic perspective in the lives of others? The second theme is closely related and that is the critical nature of the patient/physician relationship in all stages of health/illness behavior. It is often the positive, empathic strength of this relationship that affects patient behavior and ultimately the patient's medical outcome. Future research as well as physician self-examination and increased knowledge in this area are truly important. It is in this way that the procedure of colonoscopy truly becomes part of the total patient care.

Explore related subjects

ColonoscopyCultureFearHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CarePersonalityStress, PsychologicalJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P J Wagner, J B Kenrick, T Rojas, L D Woodward. 1995. Psychological considerations in colonoscopy.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7501721/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Comparative Efficacy of Different AI Systems for Polyp Detection by Size During Colonoscopy: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer remains a leading cause of death despite being largely preventable through polypectomy. AI systems designed to enhance polyp detection during colonoscopy have shown promise, but the extent to which they improve detection of different-sized polyps remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the size-stratified efficacy of AI-assisted colonoscopy vs standard colonoscopy using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) method, and generated exploratory rankings while acknowledging all cross-platform comparisons are indirect. METHODS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception to July 25, 2026, supplemented by citation searching. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AI-assisted vs standard colonoscopy in adults (≥18 years of age), reporting mean polyp detection counts stratified by size (≤5 mm, 6-9 mm, and ≥10 mm). Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. We conducted frequentist NMA using the HKSJ method with restricted maximum likelihood estimation, calculated 95% prediction intervals (PIs), and assessed heterogeneity using I2 and τ2. Certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework. RESULTS: A total of 13 RCTs (4156 participants) compared 8 AI systems to standard colonoscopy, forming a network without direct AI comparisons. For diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI showed a modest advantage (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35, 95% PI -1.12 to 1.54), but substantial heterogeneity (I2=86.6%) and wide PI crossing the null indicated high uncertainty. EndoScreener showed the most consistent evidence (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.54). For small and large polyps, effects were minimal (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06, 95% PI -0.03 to 0.07; SMD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.02, 95% PI -0.01 to 0.03). GRADE certainty was very low for diminutive polyps and low for small and large polyps. Sensitivity analysis excluding Tianjin YuJin did not materially change findings. CONCLUSIONS: AI may modestly enhance diminutive polyp detection, but effects on small and large polyps are minimal, with no platform superiority. Given very low to low certainty, findings are hypothesis-generating. This exploratory NMA provides size-stratified comparisons that can inform future head-to-head trial design. Unlike prior reviews aggregating all polyp sizes, we show the overall AI benefit is driven by diminutive polyp detection, providing a framework for targeted deployment-prioritizing AI for diminutive polyp screening, with limited value for larger lesions. Head-to-head trials are urgently needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD420251266932; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251266932.

Colonoscopy↗
PubMed2000

Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy are used to screen patients for colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. DESIGN: The cost-effectiveness of the three screening strategies was compared by using computer models of a Markov process. In the model, a hypothetical population of 100 000 persons 50 years of age undergoes annual fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, or colonoscopy every 10 years. Positive results on fecal occult blood testing or adenomatous polyps found during sigmoidoscopy are worked up by using colonoscopy. After polypectomy, colonoscopy is repeated every 3 years until no polyps are found. DATA SOURCES: Transition rates were estimated from U.S. vital statistics and cancer statistics and from published data on the sensitivity, specificity, and efficacy of various screening techniques. Costs of screening and cancer care were estimated from Medicare reimbursement data. TARGET POPULATION: Persons 50 years of age in the general population. TIME HORIZON: The study population was followed annually until death. PERSPECTIVE: Third-party payer. OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Compared with colonoscopy, annual screening with fecal occult blood testing costs less but saves fewer life-years. A screening strategy based on flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 or 10 years is less cost-effective than the other two screening methods. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Screening with fecal occult blood testing is more sensitive to changes in compliance rates, and it becomes easily dominated by colonoscopy under most conditions assuming less than perfect compliance. Other assumptions about the sensitivity and specificity of fecal occult blood testing, screening frequency, efficacy of colonoscopy in preventing cancer, and polyp incidence have a lesser influence on the differences in cost-effectiveness between colonoscopy and fecal occult blood testing. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy represents a cost-effective means of screening for colorectal cancer because it reduces mortality at relatively low incremental costs. Low compliance rates render colonoscopy every 10 years the most cost-effective primary screening strategy for colorectal cancer.

Colonoscopy↗