title: Comparing patient and endoscopist perceptions of the colonoscopy indication.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  determining whether a colonoscopy is performed for screening or nonscreening purposes can facilitate clinical practice and research. However, there is no simple method to determine the colonoscopy indication using patient medical files or health administrative databases.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  to determine patient-endoscopist agreement on the colonoscopy indication.
  
  
  METHODS
  a cross-sectional study was conducted among staff endoscopists and their patients at seven university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Quebec. The study participants were 50 to 75 years of age, they were able to understand English or French, and were about to undergo colonoscopy. Self- (endoscopist) and interviewer-administered (patient) questionnaires ascertained information that permitted classification of the colonoscopy indication. Patient colonoscopy indication was defined as the following: perceived screening (routine screening, family history, age); perceived nonscreening (follow-up); medical history that implied nonscreening; and a combination of the three preceding indications. Agreement between patient and endoscopist indications was measured using concordance and Kappa statistic.
  
  
  RESULTS
  in total, 702 patients and 38 endoscopists participated. The three most common reasons for undergoing colonoscopy were routine screening⁄regular check-up (33.8%), follow-up to a previous problem (30.2%) and other problem (24.6%). Concordance (range 0.79 to 0.85) and Kappa (range 0.58 to 0.70) were highest for perceived nonscreening colonoscopy. Recent large bowel symptoms accounted for 120 occurrences of disagreement in which the patient perceived a nonscreening colonoscopy while the endoscopist perceived a screening colonoscopy.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  patient self-report may be an acceptable means for rapidly assessing whether a colonoscopy is performed for screening or nonscreening purposes. Delivery of patient-centred care may help patients and endoscopists reach a shared understanding of the reason for colonoscopy.
authors.affiliation: Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec. maida.sewitch@mcgill.ca
authors.forename: Maida J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Sewitch
authors.forename: Dara
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Stein
authors.forename: Lawrence
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Joseph
authors.forename: Alain
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Bitton
authors.forename: Robert J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Hilsden
authors.forename: Linda
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Rabeneck
authors.forename: Lawrence
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Paszat
authors.forename: Jill
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Tinmouth
authors.forename: Mary Anne
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Cooper
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D003113:Colonoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D015179:Colorectal Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis*; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods*; D008875:Middle Aged; D018802:Patient-Centered Care / Q000379:methods; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires