Premium
Positioning of Bristol Stool Form Scale type 3 in constipation treatment satisfaction: A multicenter study in Japan
Author(s) -
Yamada Eiji,
Tsunoda Seishi,
Mimura Masumi,
Akizuki Masashi,
Miyazawa Yoichiro,
Yamazaki Toshihiro,
Nagano Yasuhiko,
Murakami Reiko,
Kitahara Takashi,
Wakasugi Junichi,
Ozawa Yukihiro,
Komatsu Tatsuji,
Inamori Masahiko,
Nagai Kazuki,
Nakajima Atsushi
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of gastroenterology and hepatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.214
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1440-1746
pISSN - 0815-9319
DOI - 10.1111/jgh.15428
Subject(s) - medicine , constipation , odds ratio , patient satisfaction , confidence interval , functional constipation , quality of life (healthcare) , population , defecation , chronic constipation , physical therapy , surgery , nursing , environmental health
Background and Aim Many patients are not satisfied with chronic constipation (CC) treatments. The aim of this study was to identify factors linked to CC treatment satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Methods Our study population included patients who received CC treatment at a clinic or hospital. CC was diagnosed by a physician based on the patient's complaint. Treatment satisfaction was evaluated using the 28th question of the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life questionnaire. Results We conducted this study at 28 facilities. We included 167 patients (mean age 66.7 ± 15.2 years, male:female ratio is 1:3.07). Sixty‐eight (40.7%) of patients were satisfied with their constipation treatment. Treatment dissatisfaction of CC was significantly associated with frequency of bowel movement <3/week (odds ratio [OR] = 0.376, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.156–0.904, P = 0.029) or Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) type 3 (OR = 0.401, 95% CI: 0.170–0.946, P = 0.037). Conclusions Our study showed that CC patients with BSFS type3 were not satisfied with constipation treatment. In general, BSFS types 3–5 are defined as normal stools. Therefore, BSFS type 3 may be set as a treatment goal even though the patient is not satisfied. The pathophysiology of CC differs by region and patient background. Therefore, parameters used to define successful treatment will be different by patient or region. We should reconsider the positioning of BSFS type 3 to improve treatment satisfaction for CC.