Published on in Vol 14 (2025)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/77189, first published .
Compliance With Bowel Preparation and Its Influencing Factors in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: Cross-Sectional Study

Compliance With Bowel Preparation and Its Influencing Factors in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: Cross-Sectional Study

Compliance With Bowel Preparation and Its Influencing Factors in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: Cross-Sectional Study

Authors of this article:

Huan Jiang1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Chuanhui Li1 Author Orcid Image ;   Bing Hu1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Yi Mou1, 2 Author Orcid Image

1Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 37 Guo Xue Alley, Wuhou District, Chengdu, China

2Digestive Endoscopy Medical Engineering Research Laboratory, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China

Corresponding Author:

Yi Mou, MD


Background: Bowel preparation compliance is an important intervenable factor that affects bowel preparation quality, and improving compliance is an important way to optimize bowel preparation outcomes. Despite its importance, the compliance rate and its influencing factors have not been thoroughly evaluated.

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the overall compliance with bowel preparation instructions in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Methods: From September 2024 to March 2025, a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted at West China Hospital of Sichuan University, recruiting 740 participants via convenience sampling. We used an 8-item self-report scale to evaluate compliance with bowel preparation instructions. Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (0=completely noncompliant to 3=completely compliant), yielding a total score of 0‐24. Higher scores reflected greater compliance, with ≥95% of the maximum score considered adequate compliance. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to assess factors (age, educational level, knowledge of bowel preparation, satisfaction with the taste of the laxative, physical discomfort during bowel preparation) influencing bowel preparation compliance.

Results: In this study, 42.0% (311/740) of patients demonstrated adequate compliance with bowel preparation instructions. In the univariate analysis, hypertension history, knowledge of bowel preparation, laxative type, satisfaction with the taste of the laxative, anxiety during bowel preparation, and physical discomfort during bowel preparation all had statistically significant influences. Multivariate analysis showed that older age (odds ratio [OR] 2.27, 95% CI 1.16-4.49), higher educational level (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.41-8.33), adequate knowledge of bowel preparation (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.14-2.24), satisfaction with the taste of the laxative (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.48-3.02), and no physical discomfort during bowel preparation (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.64) were key factors for adequate bowel preparation compliance.

Conclusions: Personalizing bowel preparation instructions according to patients’ age and education level, and selecting a laxative that suits the patients’ taste preferences when available, are feasible ways to improve compliance with bowel preparation.

Interact J Med Res 2025;14:e77189

doi:10.2196/77189

Keywords



As the “gold standard” for the diagnosis of intestinal diseases such as colorectal cancer (CRC), colonoscopy provides direct and accurate visualization of the colonic mucosal surface, enabling early detection, accurate diagnosis, and timely intervention, thereby improving patient outcomes [1-3]. In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended that people with risk factors such as a family history of CRC, obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, and smoking should undergo regular colonoscopies [4,5]. Even those without these risk factors should undergo CRC screening starting at the age of 45 years and have a colonoscopy every 10 years [4]. The effectiveness of colonoscopy largely depends on the quality of bowel preparation, with adequate cleanliness being essential for a safe, efficient examination and playing a critical role in clinical outcomes [6-8]. However, studies have reported that 20%‐40% of patients undergoing colonoscopy exhibit inadequate bowel preparation, which falls far below the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy–recommended adequacy standard of 90% [9-11]. Suboptimal bowel preparation may increase the risk of missed lesions, postprocedural complications, and prolonged procedural duration, and necessitate repeat examinations, leading to additional patient discomfort and financial burden [12,13]. Thus, accurate identification of factors associated with bowel preparation holds significant clinical value for improving preparation quality. Numerous studies have identified multiple influencing factors that influence the quality of bowel preparation, including age, gender, BMI, anxiety level, and patient compliance with preparation protocols [14-20]. Strict compliance with bowel preparation instructions is recognized as a critical determinant of successful preparation. Poor compliance with prescribed requirements, including dietary restrictions, fluid intake limitations, and proper medication timing and dosage, may directly affect cleansing efficacy [19,20]. Current research predominantly evaluated compliance through single-dimensional metrics such as laxative consumption or dietary compliance, failing to holistically evaluate the full-process compliance, which includes dietary management, fluid intake restrictions, medication dosage, timing, and duration of medication use [21,22]. This study aims to evaluate the holistic compliance with bowel preparation instructions among patients undergoing colonoscopy and its multidimensional influencing factors in China. The findings will inform the optimization of personalized patient education strategies and the development of targeted preparation guidance, ultimately enhancing compliance to improve bowel preparation quality and subsequent colonoscopy outcomes.


Study Design

This cross-sectional study was conducted at West China Hospital from September 1, 2024, to March 1, 2025. Convenience sampling was used in this study.

Participants

The participants of this study were patients who underwent colonoscopy at the Endoscopy Center of West China Hospital, Sichuan University. At the time of scheduling a colonoscopy, standardized bowel preparation instructions were given verbally by the endoscopy unit receptionist, who was trained to provide these instructions as a daily routine. Patients and their relatives were also given a brochure as a reminder of bowel preparation instructions. The day before the colonoscopy, the patient began bowel preparation as instructed, including a low-fiber diet and the administration of a laxative, which was sodium phosphate or polyethylene glycol. Before undergoing the colonoscopy, patients waiting in the endoscopy center were invited to voluntarily and independently complete a mobile-based questionnaire by scanning a QR code. The questionnaire contained 32 single-choice items and required approximately 3‐5 minutes to complete.

The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were used:

  • Inclusion criteria: age ≥18 years, adequate understanding and communication abilities, and willingness to participate in the study and to sign the informed consent form
  • Exclusion criteria: inability to understand the content of the informed consent form and the questionnaire, and failure to cooperate with the investigation or provide informed consent

Sample Size

The sample size was calculated using a single population proportion sample size–estimating formula. The formula can be given as n = [(Z1 – α/2)2 p (1 – p)]/d2, where, n is the minimum sample size, Z1 – α/2 is at a 99% CI of 2.58, P is the assumed adequate compliance with bowel preparation (50%), and d is the margin of error to be tolerated (5%). Using this formula, the estimated sample size is 666. Accounting for a 10% nonresponse rate, a total of 740 patients were needed. It should be noted that the 50% expected proportion was chosen as it provides the largest sample size estimate [23].

Questionnaire

General Information Questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed on the basis of a review of the literature and consultation with experts. It includes information on the following aspects: gender, age, educational level, residence, residency status, hypertension history, diabetes history, family history of CRC or polyps, know anyone with colorectal polyps or CRC other than a first-degree relative, and colonoscopy history.

Knowledge of Colonoscopy and Bowel Preparation

Patients’ knowledge of colonoscopy and bowel preparation was measured using three and four questions, respectively. Each question has four response options: 0=no understanding at all, 1=a little understanding, 2=moderate understanding, and 3=complete understanding. Higher scores reflect better knowledge, with a score of 5 or above indicating adequate knowledge of colonoscopy and a score of 7 or above indicating adequate knowledge of bowel preparation.

Bowel Preparation Compliance

We designed a scale to assess patients’ compliance with various aspects of bowel preparation instructions. The self-developed scale consists of 8 questions and is scored on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from “completely noncompliant” to “completely compliant,” with scores ranging from 0 to 3. The total score ranges from 0 to 24 points, with higher scores indicating greater bowel preparation compliance. A score greater than 95% of the total score was defined as adequate compliance and vice versa as inadequate compliance. Prior to the start of the formal study, we validated the questionnaire in a preexperiment that included 50 individuals, with a calculated Cronbach α coefficient of 0.877.

Current Bowel Preparation Experience Survey

In this section, we investigated the laxative type used by the patients for current bowel preparation, overall satisfaction with the taste of the laxative, anxiety during the bowel preparation, physical discomfort during the bowel preparation, and clarity of the bowel preparation instructions, with each variable classified as binary.

Study Variable Definitions

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable was the bowel preparation compliance (adequate or inadequate).

Independent Variables

The independent variables were gender; age; educational level (elementary school or no education, secondary school, university or higher); residence (urban, rural); residency status (living alone or with family); hypertension history; diabetes history; family history of CRC or polyps; know anyone with colorectal polyps or CRC other than a first-degree relative; colonoscopy history; knowledge of colonoscopy (adequate or inadequate); knowledge of bowel preparation (adequate or inadequate); and current bowel preparation experience, including overall satisfaction with the taste of the laxative (satisfactory or unsatisfactory), anxiety during the bowel preparation, physical discomfort during the bowel preparation, and clarity of the bowel preparation instructions.

Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using R version 4.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Continuous variables were presented as means and SDs, whereas categorical variables were expressed as numbers and percentages or frequencies. Intergroup differences with respect to continuous variables were assessed via Student t test, if the data met the normality assumption and variance homogeneity. Otherwise, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used. Intergroup differences with respect to categorical variables were assessed using Pearson χ² test or Fisher exact probability test, when appropriate.

Variables with P<.10 in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis, and independent factors influencing patients’ compliance with bowel preparation were identified through the “enter” selection method (ie, the totally adjusted model). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to assess the fitness of the model, with P>.05 indicating an acceptable fit. The multivariate analysis results are expressed using odds ratios and 95% CIs only. A P<.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Ethical Considerations

The research study received approval from the Ethics Committee of West China Hospital, Sichuan University (ChiCTR2400089364). Prior to conducting the questionnaire, written consent was obtained from all participants. The privacy of the participants was respected. All data in the manuscript were anonymized in accordance with ethical standards, ensuring no personally identifiable information could be discerned. No compensation was provided to participants in this study.


Sample Characteristics

This study ultimately included 740 patients undergoing colonoscopy. Among the total sample, more than half (n=416, 56.2%) were female, 70% (n=518) had a university education or higher, and 90.5% (n=670) lived in urban areas. The majority (n=704, 95.1%) had no personal history of diabetes, and 86.5% (n=640) had no family history of CRC or polyps. More than half (n=385, 52.0%) of the patients had no prior colonoscopy. Other variables are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. General information of patients undergoing colonoscopy (N=740).
VariablesPatients, n (%)
Gender
Male324 (43.8)
Female416 (56.2)
Age (years)
18-35152 (20.5)
36‐49245 (33.1)
50‐64260 (35.1)
65‐7475 (10.1)
≥758 (1.1)
Educational level
Elementary school or no education35 (4.7)
Secondary school187 (25.3)
University or higher518 (70.0)
Residence
Urban670 (90.5)
Rural70 (9.5)
Residency status
Living alone45 (6.1)
Living with family695 (93.9)
Diabetes history
No704 (95.1)
Yes36 (4.9)
Hypertension history
No632 (85.4)
Yes108 (14.6)
Family history of colorectal cancer or polyps
No640 (86.5)
Yes100 (13.5)
Know anyone with colorectal polyps or colorectal cancer other than a first-degree relative
No444 (60.0)
Yes296 (40.0)
Colonoscopy history
No385 (52.0)
Yes355 (48.0)

Knowledge of Bowel Preparation and Colonoscopy and Current Bowel Preparation Experience of Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy

Table 2 presents colonoscopy patients’ knowledge of bowel preparation and colonoscopy, as well as their experience with the current bowel preparation. Of the 740 patients, a total of 56.4% (n=417) and 46.1% (n=341) had adequate knowledge of bowel preparation and colonoscopy, respectively. More than half (n=391, 52.8%) of the patients were unsatisfied with the taste of the laxative. Anxiety and physical discomfort during bowel preparation were experienced by 43.9% (n=325) and 59.3% (n=439) of patients, respectively.

Table 2. Knowledge of bowel preparation and colonoscopy and current bowel preparation experience of patients undergoing colonoscopy (N=740).
VariablesPatients, n (%)
Knowledge of bowel preparation
Inadequate or poor323 (43.6)
Adequate or excellent417 (56.4)
Knowledge of colonoscopy
Inadequate or poor399 (53.9)
Adequate or excellent341 (46.1)
Any bowel discomfort prior to this colonoscopy
No350 (47.3)
Yes390 (52.7)
Current colonoscopy schedule
Morning244 (33.0)
Afternoon309 (41.8)
Evening187 (25.3)
Laxative type
Sodium phosphate246 (33.2)
Polyethylene glycol494 (66.8)
Satisfaction with the taste of the laxative
Unsatisfactory391 (52.8)
Satisfactory349 (47.2)
Anxiety during bowel preparation
No415 (56.1)
Yes325 (43.9)
Physical discomfort during bowel preparation
No301 (40.7)
Yes439 (59.3)
Clarity of bowel preparation instructions
No19 (2.6)
Yes721 (97.4)

Univariate Analysis of Factors Influencing Compliance With Bowel Preparation

Of the 740 patients, 311 (42.0%) showed adequate compliance with bowel preparation. Intergroup differences were compared between patients with and without adequate bowel preparation compliance (Table 3). The results indicate that hypertension history (P=.01), knowledge of bowel preparation (P=.004), laxative type (P=.008), satisfaction with the taste and flavor of the laxative (P<.001), anxiety during bowel preparation (P<.001), and physical discomfort during bowel preparation (P<.001) all have statistically significant impacts on patient compliance (Table 3).

Table 3. Univariate analysis of bowel preparation compliance in patients undergoing colonoscopy.
VariablesAdequate compliance (n=311)Inadequate compliance (n=429)Chi-square (df)P value
Gender0.04 (1).84
Male138 (44.4)186 (43.4)
Female173 (55.6)243 (56.6)
Age (years)9.22 (4).06
18‐3557 (18.3)95 (22.1)
36‐4994 (30.2)151 (35.2)
50‐64115 (37.0)145 (33.8)
65‐7442 (13.5)33 (7.7)
≥753 (1.0)5 (1.2)
Educational level5.97 (2).05
Elementary school or no education9 (2.9)26 (6.1)
Secondary school72 (23.2)115 (26.8)
University or higher230 (74.0)288 (67.1)
Residence1.00 (1).32
Urban286 (92.0)384 (89.5)
Rural25 (8.0)45 (10.5)
Residency status0.19 (1).66
Living alone17 (5.5)28 (6.5)
Living with family294 (94.5)401 (93.5)
Diabetes history0.02 (1).90
No295 (94.9)409 (95.3)
Yes16 (5.1)20 (4.7)
Hypertension history6.53 (1).01a
No253 (81.4)379 (88.3)
Yes58 (18.6)50 (11.7)
Family history of colorectal cancer or polyps0.11 (1).74
No271 (87.1)369 (86.0)
Yes40 (12.9)60 (14.0)
Know anyone with colorectal polyps or colorectal cancer other than a first-degree relative1.52 (1).22
No178 (57.2)266 (62.0)
Yes133 (42.8)163 (38.0)
Colonoscopy history0.04 (1).85
No160 (51.4)225 (52.4)
Yes151 (48.6)204 (47.6)
Knowledge of bowel preparation8.35 (1).004a
Inadequate or poor116 (37.3)207 (48.3)
Adequate or excellent195 (62.7)222 (51.7)
Knowledge of colonoscopy1.88 (1).17
Inadequate or poor158 (50.8)241 (56.2)
Adequate or excellent153 (49.2)188 (43.8)
Any bowel discomfort prior to this colonoscopy0.00 (1)>.99
No147 (47.3)203 (47.3)
Yes164 (52.7)226 (52.7)
Current colonoscopy schedule4.01 (2).14
Morning90 (28.9)154 (35.9)
Afternoon139 (44.7)170 (39.6)
Evening82 (26.4)105 (24.5)
Laxative type7.13 (1).008a
Sodium phosphate86 (27.7)160 (37.3)
Polyethylene glycol225 (72.3)269 (62.7)
Satisfaction with the taste of the laxative50.90 (1)<.001a
Unsatisfactory116 (37.3)275 (64.1)
Satisfactory195 (62.7)154 (35.9)
Anxiety during bowel preparation21.80 (1)<.001a
No206 (66.2)209 (48.7)
Yes105 (33.8)220 (51.3)
Physical discomfort during bowel preparation64.60 (1)<.001a
No180 (57.9)121 (28.2)
Yes131 (42.1)308 (71.8)
Clarity of bowel preparation instructions2.69 (1).10
No4 (1.3)15 (3.5)
Yes307 (98.7)414 (96.5)

aP<.05.

Multivariate Analysis of Factors Influencing Bowel Preparation Compliance

Binary logistic regression analysis indicated that age, educational level, knowledge of bowel preparation, satisfaction with the taste of the laxative, and physical discomfort during bowel preparation are independent influencing factors for patient compliance (Table 4). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was not significant, indicating that the model fits the data well (χ28=5.09; P=.75).

Table 4. Multivariate analysis of bowel preparation compliance in patients undergoing colonoscopy.
VariablesOdds ratio (95% CI)P value
Age (years)
18‐35Referencea
36‐491.04 (0.67-1.64).85
50‐641.23 (0.76-1.98).41
65‐742.27 (1.16-4.49).02b
≥750.91 (0.16-4.50).91
Educational level
Elementary school or no educationReference
Secondary school1.99 (0.85-5.00).12
University or higher3.29 (1.41-8.33).008b
Hypertension history
NoReference
Yes1.56 (0.95-2.56).08
Knowledge of bowel preparation
Inadequate or poorReference
Adequate or excellent1.59 (1.14-2.24).007b
Laxative type
Sodium phosphateReference
Polyethylene glycol1.15 (0.81-1.63).44
Satisfaction with the taste and flavor of the laxative
UnsatisfactoryReference
Satisfactory2.11 (1.48-3.02)<.001b
Anxiety during bowel preparation
NoReference
Yes0.82 (0.57-1.18).28
Physical discomfort during bowel preparation
NoReference
Yes0.45 (0.31-0.64)<.001b

aNot applicable.

bP<.05.


One of our study objectives is to evaluate the compliance rate with bowel preparation of Chinese patients undergoing colonoscopy. The survey results revealed that inadequate bowel preparation compliance among colonoscopy patients was up to 58.0% (429/740), which was significantly higher than the 23.6% previously reported in a study [24]. This may be related to the more multidimensional (including dietary management, fluid intake restrictions, medication dosage, timing, and duration of medication use) and demanding (a score greater than 95% of the total compliance score) assessment of bowel preparation compliance in our study.

Our results showed that patients’ compliance with bowel preparation instructions was related to age, educational level, and knowledge of bowel preparation. Patients in the 65‐74 years age group had higher compliance than younger patients in the 18‐35 years age group. This may be related to the fact that the retired population has more time to read bowel preparation instructions, whereas the younger patients may ignore relevant details due to work pressure and busy routines. Moreover, the busy lifestyle and tendency of young people to eat out may also hinder their strict compliance with the long and complex food list for dietary restriction before colonoscopy [25]. Patients with a higher level of education and better knowledge of bowel preparation are more likely to understand the educational content provided by health care professionals [26,27]. These patients may tend to recognize the importance and benefits of adequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy, thus improving their compliance [24]. In the future, personalized health education content can be developed for patients on the basis of their age and educational level to increase their knowledge and improve compliance. For example, customized instructions with concise content can be designed specifically for young people to address their unique challenges.

In this study, the type of laxative significantly influenced compliance in univariate analysis. However, in multivariate analysis, it no longer emerged as an independent factor, suggesting that the effect of laxative type may primarily influence compliance indirectly through associated experiential factors such as taste satisfaction and physical discomfort. Sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol are two commonly used clinical laxatives that commonly cause adverse reactions such as bloating, nausea, vomiting, and dizziness [28]. These adverse reactions, as well as poor taste and flavor, may result in patients not being able to take adequate amounts of laxative, leading to poor compliance. Of the 740 patients in this study, more than half (n=391, 52.8%) were unsatisfied with the taste of the laxative used, and close to 60% (n=439) experienced physical discomfort during bowel preparation. A study by Hautefeuille et al [29] also showed that patients described nausea and vomiting as the main reasons for noncompliance with bowel preparation protocols. Therefore, for patients with prior experience of bowel preparation, it is important to inquire about their previous experiences with laxatives when they need to undergo bowel preparation again, and laxatives that are acceptable to the patient in terms of taste should be selected to minimize the occurrence of adverse reactions and improve patient compliance.

There are several limitations of this study. First, this study adopted a convenience sampling method and was conducted in a single tertiary hospital in an urban area, which may have introduced selection bias and led to an overestimation of certain indicators (eg, educational level and health awareness of patients). Future research could expand the study to multiple centers to gain a more comprehensive understanding of patient compliance in different settings. Second, bowel preparation compliance was self-reported, which may introduce recall bias, potentially leading to overestimation or underestimation of actual compliance. In addition, it was assessed using a newly developed scale that has only undergone preliminary validation, and its reliability and generalizability require further confirmation in larger and more diverse populations. Third, this study did not collect results on the quality of patients’ bowel preparation, nor did it explore the correlation between compliance and bowel preparation quality. Lastly, due to the cross-sectional design, it is not possible to establish causal relationships. Overall, these limitations highlight critical areas for future research and improvement in understanding and bowel preparation compliance in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

This study revealed that patients had relatively low compliance with bowel preparation. Independent factors identified included age, educational level, knowledge of bowel preparation, satisfaction with the taste of the laxative, and physical discomfort during bowel preparation. Based on the data from this study, we recommend personalizing the educational content of bowel preparation according to the patients’ age and literacy level, and selecting the type of laxative that the patient is satisfied with when available. Our study provides insights for improving bowel preparation compliance in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Science and Technology Project of Sichuan Provincial Health Commission (grant 23LCYJ037) and Sichuan Province Cadres Health Research (grant ZH2024 -102).

Data Availability

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.

Authors' Contributions

HJ and BH conceived and designed the study. HJ and CL carried out the data collection. HJ analyzed the data. HJ drafted the manuscript. BH and YM reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

  1. Feng L, Guan J, Dong R, et al. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. Jun 2024;17(2):341-350. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Sulz MC, Kröger A, Prakash M, Manser CN, Heinrich H, Misselwitz B. Meta-analysis of the effect of bowel preparation on adenoma detection: early adenomas affected stronger than advanced adenomas. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(6):e0154149. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. AlAmeel T. Bowel preparation: the elderly, the hospitalized, and the colonoscope. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(2):73-74. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. Haghighat S, Sussman DA, Deshpande A. US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement on screening for colorectal cancer. JAMA. Oct 5, 2021;326(13):1328. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Gravina AG, Pellegrino R, Romeo M, et al. Quality of bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing colonoscopy: what factors to consider? World J Gastrointest Endosc. Mar 16, 2023;15(3):133-145. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Sharma VK, Steinberg EN, Vasudeva R, Howden CW. Randomized, controlled study of pretreatment with magnesium citrate on the quality of colonoscopy preparation with polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution. Gastrointest Endosc. Dec 1997;46(6):541-543. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. van Doorn SC, Dekker E. Colonoscopy quality begins with a clean colon. Endoscopy. Jul 2012;44(7):639-640. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  8. Lee JK, Jensen CD, Levin TR, et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer and related death after adenoma removal in a large, community-based population. Gastroenterology. Mar 2020;158(4):884-894. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  9. Jawa H, Mosli M, Alsamadani W, et al. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy. Turk J Gastroenterol. Nov 2017;28(6):460-464. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Serper M, Gawron AJ, Smith SG, et al. Patient factors that affect quality of colonoscopy preparation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. Mar 2014;12(3):451-457. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2013;45(2):142-150. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Byrne MF. The curse of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. Jul 2002;97(7):1587-1590. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. Oct 2014;109(10):1528-1545. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Wu KL, Rayner CK, Chuah SK, Chiu KW, Lu CC, Chiu YC. Impact of low-residue diet on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum. Jan 2011;54(1):107-112. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  15. Wong MCS, Ching JYL, Chan VCW, et al. Determinants of bowel preparation quality and its association with adenoma detection: a prospective colonoscopy study. Medicine (Baltimore). Jan 2016;95(2):e2251. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  16. Borg BB, Gupta NK, Zuckerman GR, Banerjee B, Gyawali CP. Impact of obesity on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. Jun 2009;7(6):670-675. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Kutlutürkan S, Görgülü U, Fesci H, Karavelioglu A. The effects of providing pre-gastrointestinal endoscopy written educational material on patients’ anxiety: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. Sep 2010;47(9):1066-1073. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Amitay EL, Niedermaier T, Gies A, Hoffmeister M, Brenner H. Risk factors of inadequate bowel preparation for screening colonoscopy. J Clin Med. Jun 21, 2021;10(12):2740. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  19. Seo EH, Kim TO, Park MJ, et al. Optimal preparation-to-colonoscopy interval in split-dose PEG bowel preparation determines satisfactory bowel preparation quality: an observational prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. Mar 2012;75(3):583-590. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Fang J, Fu HY, Ma D, et al. Constipation, fiber intake and non-compliance contribute to inadequate colonoscopy bowel preparation: a prospective cohort study. J Dig Dis. Jul 2016;17(7):458-463. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  21. Liu X, Luo H, Zhang L, et al. Telephone-based re-education on the day before colonoscopy improves the quality of bowel preparation and the polyp detection rate: a prospective, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised, controlled study. Gut. Jan 2014;63(1):125-130. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  22. Lee YJ, Kim ES, Choi JH, et al. Impact of reinforced education by telephone and short message service on the quality of bowel preparation: a randomized controlled study. Endoscopy. Nov 2015;47(11):1018-1027. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  23. ALruwaili BF. Evaluation of hypertension-related knowledge, medication adherence, and associated factors among hypertensive patients in the Aljouf Region, Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. Medicina (Kaunas). Nov 6, 2024;60(11):1822. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  24. Chan WK, Saravanan A, Manikam J, Goh KL, Mahadeva S. Appointment waiting times and education level influence the quality of bowel preparation in adult patients undergoing colonoscopy. BMC Gastroenterol. Jul 28, 2011;11:86. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  25. Chou CK, Chang CY, Chang CC, et al. Controlled dietary restriction with a prepackaged low-residue diet before colonoscopy offers better-quality bowel cleansing and allows the use of a smaller volume of purgatives: a randomized multicenter trial. Dis Colon Rectum. Oct 2016;59(10):975-983. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  26. Nguyen DL, Wieland M. Risk factors predictive of poor quality preparation during average risk colonoscopy screening: the importance of health literacy. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. Dec 2010;19(4):369-372. [Medline]
  27. Smith SG, von Wagner C, McGregor LM, et al. The influence of health literacy on comprehension of a colonoscopy preparation information leaflet. Dis Colon Rectum. Oct 2012;55(10):1074-1080. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  28. Unger RZ, Amstutz SP, Seo DH, Huffman M, Rex DK. Willingness to undergo split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy and compliance with split-dose instructions. Dig Dis Sci. Jul 2010;55(7):2030-2034. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  29. Hautefeuille G, Lapuelle J, Chaussade S, et al. Factors related to bowel cleansing failure before colonoscopy: results of the PACOME study. United European Gastroenterol J. Feb 2014;2(1):22-29. [CrossRef] [Medline]


CRC: colorectal cancer
OR: odds ratio


Edited by Naomi Cahill, Taiane de Azevedo Cardoso; submitted 08.May.2025; peer-reviewed by Jonathan Soldera, Natthakapach Rattanapitoon, Pratik Shingru; final revised version received 29.Sep.2025; accepted 30.Sep.2025; published 21.Oct.2025.

Copyright

© Huan Jiang, Chuanhui Li, Bing Hu, Yi Mou. Originally published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research (https://www.i-jmr.org/), 21.Oct.2025.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.i-jmr.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.