4.4 Article

Results of Anorectal Physiological Testing in Patients with Limited English Proficiency

期刊

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
卷 68, 期 3, 页码 750-760

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-022-07732-0

关键词

Constipation; Defecation; *physiology; High-resolution manometry (HRM); Humans; Language; Manometry; *methods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) may have different results in anorectal testing compared to English proficiency (EP) patients, likely due to differences in disease prevalence caused by referral bias rather than physiological differences or language barriers.
Background Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience barriers to healthcare. These include language barriers and difficulty accessing medical subspecialties. Consequently, patients with LEP may be underrepresented, and may be more likely to have abnormal results, among individuals referred for anorectal testing. Aims To explore whether differences exist in the results of high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRM), rectal sensory testing (RST), and balloon expulsion testing (BET) between patients with LEP and English proficiency (EP). Methods The electronic health records at Mayo Clinic, Rochester were used to identify constipated patients without organic anorectal disease who had undergone anorectal testing in 2018, 2019, and 2020. The language spoken by the patients was determined. HRM, RST, and BET results were compared. Nominal logistic regression explored the influence of age, gender, test operator, and LEP on the likelihood of abnormal findings. Key Results Among 3298 patients (80% female, mean age +/- standard deviation 46 +/- 16 years), 67 (2%) had LEP. HRM measurements were similar in LEP and EP patients. However, LEP patients were more likely to have abnormal BET and RST. Logistic regression revealed that age (older than 50 years), gender, test operator, and LEP influenced the results of BET and RST, with LEP having the strongest influence. Conclusions Results of anorectal testing in constipated patients differ between LEP and EP patients. This is likely to represent a difference in disease prevalence between these groups, for example, due to referral bias, rather than a difference in physiology or a language barrier.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据