Survey of Anxiety in Ordinary Workers and Doctors Regarding Sedative Use during Endoscopic Examination in the Seoul Metropolitan Area
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background/Aims: Sedative use is common in endoscopic examinations. The anxiety regarding sedative use may be different between doctors and nonmedical individuals. Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted by a research company (DOOIT Survey), and responses were collected from 649 doctors and 1,738 individuals who perform typical jobs in nonmedical fields. In this study, these ordinary workers are considered to represent nonmedical individuals. Anxiety was measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: The nonmedical individuals exhibited more anxiety regarding the sedative use than the doctors. Age <40 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; p<0.001), female sex (OR, 1.62; p=0.002), experience of an adverse event (OR, 1.79; p=0.049), and insufficient explanation (OR, 2.05; p<0.001) were the significant factors that increased the anxiety of the nonmedical individuals. The doctors who experienced a sedative-related adverse event reported increased anxiety compared with the doctors who did not report this experience (OR, 1.73; p=0.031). Conclusions: Anxiety regarding sedative use during an endoscopic examination was significantly different between doctors and non-medical individuals. A younger age, female sex, an adverse event, and insufficient explanation affect the anxiety of nonmedical individuals. An adverse event also affects the anxiety of doctors.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Sedative use is common in endoscopic examinations. The anxiety regarding sedative use may be different between doctors and nonmedical individuals. Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted by a research company (DOOIT Survey), and responses were collected from 649 doctors and 1,738 individuals who perform typical jobs in nonmedical fields. In this study, these ordinary workers are considered to represent nonmedical individuals. Anxiety was measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: The nonmedical individuals exhibited more anxiety regarding the sedative use than the doctors. Age <40 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; p<0.001), female sex (OR, 1.62; p=0.002), experience of an adverse event (OR, 1.79; p=0.049), and insufficient explanation (OR, 2.05; p<0.001) were the significant factors that increased the anxiety of the nonmedical individuals. The doctors who experienced a sedative-related adverse event reported increased anxiety compared with the doctors who did not report this experience (OR, 1.73; p=0.031). Conclusions: Anxiety regarding sedative use during an endoscopic examination was significantly different between doctors and non-medical individuals. A younger age, female sex, an adverse event, and insufficient explanation affect the anxiety of nonmedical individuals. An adverse event also affects the anxiety of doctors.
참고문헌 (26)
- Liu H, "Medicare coverage of anesthesia services during screening colonoscopies for patients at low risk of sedation-related complications", JAMA Intern Med, 175, pp.1848~1850 (2015)
- Shin JY, "Prescribing patterns of the four most commonly used sedatives in endoscopic examination in Korea: propofol, midazolam, diazepam, and lorazepam", Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 71, pp.565~570 (2015)
- Robbertze R, "Closed claims review of anesthesia for procedures outside the operating room", Curr Opin Anaesthesiol, 19, pp.436~442 (2006)
- Abraham NS, "Barkun AN. Sedation versus no sedation in the performance of diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a Canadian randomized controlled cost-outcome study", Am J Gastroenterol, 99, pp.1692~1699 (2004)
- Obara K, "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy", Dig Endosc, 27, pp.435~449 (2015)
- Igea F, "Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy", Endoscopy, 46, pp.720~731 (2014)
- American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, "Multisociety sedation curriculum for gastrointestinal endoscopy", Gastroenterology, 143, pp.e18~e41 (2012)
- Dumonceau JM, "European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy", Endoscopy, 42, pp.960~974 (2010)
- Riphaus A, "S3-guidelines: sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy", Z Gastroenterol, 46, pp.1298~1330 (2008)
- Eckardt VF, "Complications and adverse effects of colonoscopy with selective sedation", Gastrointest Endosc, 49, pp.560~565 (1999)
- Chan MT, "Optimizing depth of sedation for colonoscopy", Can J Anaesth, 62, pp.1143~1148 (2015)
- 노운석, "Analysis of Anesthesia-related Medical Disputes in the 2009-2014 Period Using the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists Database", Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30(2), pp.207~213 (2015), 대한의학회
- Carifio J, "Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes", J Soc Sci, 3, pp.106~116 (2007)
- National Health Insurance Corporation, "2012 National health screening statistical yearbook" (2013), National Health Insurance Corporation
- McGinnis JM, "The case for more active policy attention to health promotion", Health Aff, 21, pp.78~93 (2002)
- Brody DS, "Patient perception of involvement in medical care: relationship to illness attitudes and outcomes", J Gen Intern Med, 4, pp.506~511 (1989)
- Martin JP, "Development of a sedation policy for upper GI endoscopy based on an audit of patients’ perception of the procedure", Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 8, pp.355~357 (1996)
- Thanvi BR, "Acceptability of oesophagogastroduodenoscopy without intravenous sedation: patients’ versus endoscopist’s perception with special reference to older patients", Postgrad Med J, 79, pp.650~651 (2003)
- Whitney SN, "A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent", Ann Intern Med, 140, pp.54~59 (2004)
- Charles C, "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)", Soc Sci Med, 44, pp.681~692 (1997)
- Charles C, "Decision-making in the physicianpatient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model", Soc Sci Med, 49, pp.651~661 (1999)
- Towle A, "Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making", BMJ, 319, pp.766~771 (1999)
- Grilli R, "Evaluating the message: the relationship between compliance rate and the subject of a practice guideline", Med Care, 32, pp.202~213 (1994)
- Grol R, "Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study", BMJ, 317, pp.858~861 (1998)
- Hayward RS, "Clinical practice guidelines on trial", CMAJ, 156, pp.1725~1727 (1997)
- Rogers EM, "Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of innovations", Jt Comm J Qual Improv, 21, pp.324~328 (1995)