Background: The focus of testing the dynamic spectral imaging (DSI) colposcope has been on the technical characteristics and clinical performance. However, aspects from a patient's perspective are just as important. Methods: This study was designed as a substudy of the DSI validation study, a prospective comparative, multicenter clinical trial to assess the clinical performance of DSI colposcopy. All women included in this study were asked to complete two questionnaires: a patient characteristics questionnaire and a patient satisfaction questionnaire. Results: In the initial study a total of 239 women were included in the intention-to-treat cohort. Of these, 230 women (96.2%) completed both questionnaires. When assessing the women's preferences for some of the possible uses of DSI colposcopy, a high level of agreement was noted for all potential implementations. In general, women found the additional time DSI colposcopy took acceptable: just 15 women (6.5%) thought the time DSI colposcopy took made them feel uncomfortable. Furthermore, women ranked test accuracy as the most important characteristic, followed by (more) rapid testing and comfort. Quick notification of the results and costs were considered the least important characteristics. Conclusion: Women are willing to accept discomfort in the form of an additional or longer test if there is clinical benefit.

Keywords:
Colposcopy, Dynamic spectral imaging, Questionnaire, Patient satisfaction, Patient preference
1.
Bekkers RL, van de Nieuwenhof HP, Neesham DE, Hendriks JH, Tan J, Quinn MA: Does experience in colposcopy improve identification of high grade abnormalities? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008;141:75-78.
2.
Ferris DG, Litaker MS: Prediction of cervical histologic results using an abbreviated Reid Colposcopic Index during ALTS. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:704-710.
3.
Massad LS, Collins YC: Strength of correlations between colposcopic impression and biopsy histology. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89:424-428.
4.
Mitchell MF, Schottenfeld D, Tortolero-Luna G, Cantor SB, Richards-Kortum R: Colposcopy for the diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:626-631.
5.
Wu S, Meng L, Wang S, Ma D: A comparison of four screening methods for cervical neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;91:189-193.
6.
Louwers J, Zaal A, Kocken M, Ter HW, Graziosi G, Spruijt J, et al: Dynamic spectral imaging colposcopy: higher sensitivity for detection of premalignant cervical lesions. BJOG 2011;118:309-318.
7.
Soutter WP, Diakomanolis E, Lyons D, Ghaem-Maghami S, Ajala T, Haidopoulos D, et al: Dynamic spectral imaging: improving colposcopy. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:1814-1820.
8.
Zaal A, Louwers J, Berkhof J, Kocken M, Ter HW, Graziosi G, et al: Agreement between colposcopic impression and histological diagnosis among human papillomavirus type 16-positive women: a clinical trial using dynamic spectral imaging colposcopy. BJOG 2012;119:537-544.
9.
Coronado P, Fasero M: Correlating the accuracy of colposcopy to practitioner experience using the dynamic spectral imaging system (DySIS). Gynecol Obstet Invest, in press.
10.
National Institute For Health And Clinical Excellence: Adjunctive Colposcopy Technologies for Examination of the Uterine Cervix - DySIS and the Niris Imaging System. London, NICE, 2012.
11.
Wade R, Spackman E, Corbett M, Walker S, Light K, Naik R, et al: Adjunctive colposcopy technologies for examination of the uterine cervix - DySIS, LuViva Advanced Cervical Scan and Niris Imaging System: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2013;17:1-240, v-vi.
12.
Cervical Screening Programme - England, 2010-2011. 2011. [cited 2013 Jan 15]. http://data.gov.uk/dataset/cervical-screening-programme-england@2012-11-26T16%3A35%3A59.308989 (accessed January 15, 2013).
13.
Larsen M, Oldeide CC, Malterud K: Not so bad after all..., women's experiences of pelvic examinations. Fam Pract 1997;14:148-152.
14.
Larsen SB, Kragstrup J: Expectations and knowledge of pelvic examinations in a random sample of Danish teenagers. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1995;16:93-99.
15.
Larsen SB, Kragstrup J: Experiences of the first pelvic examination in a random samples of Danish teenagers. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1995;74:137-141.
16.
Yanikkerem E, Ozdemir M, Bingol H, Tatar A, Karadeniz G: Women's attitudes and expectations regarding gynaecological examination. Midwifery 2009;25:500-508.
17.
Naki NM, Api O, Acioglu HC, Uzun MG, Kars B, Unal O: Analgesic efficacy of forced coughing versus local anesthesia during cervical punch biopsy. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2011;72:5-9.
18.
Ferris DG, Dickman ED, Litaker MS, Smith KM, Allmond LM, Arrington TL: Patient acceptance of fluorescent and reflective spectroscopy as a replacement test for the Pap smear. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2003;7:294-298.
19.
Ferris DG, Litaker MS, Dickman ED, Allmond LM, Smith KM, Arrington TL: Women's responses to cervical interrogation by fluorescent and reflective spectroscopy. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2003;7:299-303.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.