Advanced

The EPAGE internet guideline as a decision support tool for determining the appropriateness of colonoscopy

Terraz, O; Wietlisbach, V; Jeannot, J G; Burnand, B; Froehlich, F; Gonvers, J-J; Harris, J K and Vadera, J-P (2005) In Digestion 71(2). p.72-77
Abstract
Background: Few studies have examined how physicians perceive guidelines, much less their perceptions of an Internet presentation of such guidelines. This study assessed physicians' acceptance ofan Internet-based guideline on the appropriateness of colonoscopy. Methods: Gastroenterologists participating in an international observational study consulted an Internet-based guideline for consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy. The guideline was produced by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE), using a validated method (RAND). Through the use of questionnaires, physicians were asked their opinions and perspectives of the guideline and website. Results: There were 289 patients included in the... (More)
Background: Few studies have examined how physicians perceive guidelines, much less their perceptions of an Internet presentation of such guidelines. This study assessed physicians' acceptance ofan Internet-based guideline on the appropriateness of colonoscopy. Methods: Gastroenterologists participating in an international observational study consulted an Internet-based guideline for consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy. The guideline was produced by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE), using a validated method (RAND). Through the use of questionnaires, physicians were asked their opinions and perspectives of the guideline and website. Results: There were 289 patients included in the study. The mean time for consulting the website was 1.8 min, and it was considered easy to use by 86% of physicians. The recommendations were easily located for 82% of patients and physicians agreed with the appropriateness in 86% of cases. According to the EPAGE criteria, colonoscopy was appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate in 59, 28, and 13% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The EPAGE guideline was considered acceptable and user-friendly and the use, usefulness and relevance of the website were considered acceptable. However, its actual use will depend on the removal of certain organizational and cultural obstacles. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Guidelines, Internet, European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Appropriateness of care, Clinical practice, Colonoscopy
in
Digestion
volume
71
issue
2
pages
72 - 77
publisher
Karger
external identifiers
  • scopus:18744387245
ISSN
1421-9867
DOI
10.1159/000084522
language
English
LU publication?
no
id
d364bfef-f488-4bbd-858f-78e9a77522a7 (old id 1133570)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15775674
http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/84522
date added to LUP
2013-10-16 15:20:30
date last changed
2017-01-01 04:40:37
@article{d364bfef-f488-4bbd-858f-78e9a77522a7,
  abstract     = {Background: Few studies have examined how physicians perceive guidelines, much less their perceptions of an Internet presentation of such guidelines. This study assessed physicians' acceptance ofan Internet-based guideline on the appropriateness of colonoscopy. Methods: Gastroenterologists participating in an international observational study consulted an Internet-based guideline for consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy. The guideline was produced by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE), using a validated method (RAND). Through the use of questionnaires, physicians were asked their opinions and perspectives of the guideline and website. Results: There were 289 patients included in the study. The mean time for consulting the website was 1.8 min, and it was considered easy to use by 86% of physicians. The recommendations were easily located for 82% of patients and physicians agreed with the appropriateness in 86% of cases. According to the EPAGE criteria, colonoscopy was appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate in 59, 28, and 13% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The EPAGE guideline was considered acceptable and user-friendly and the use, usefulness and relevance of the website were considered acceptable. However, its actual use will depend on the removal of certain organizational and cultural obstacles.},
  author       = {Terraz, O and Wietlisbach, V and Jeannot, J G and Burnand, B and Froehlich, F and Gonvers, J-J and Harris, J K and Vadera, J-P},
  issn         = {1421-9867},
  keyword      = {Guidelines,Internet,European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy,Appropriateness of care,Clinical practice,Colonoscopy},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {72--77},
  publisher    = {Karger},
  series       = {Digestion},
  title        = {The EPAGE internet guideline as a decision support tool for determining the appropriateness of colonoscopy},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000084522},
  volume       = {71},
  year         = {2005},
}