Table 1.
Attendance and use of allocated bowel preparation. Values are numbers (percentages) of participants
| Total
|
Welwyn Garden City
|
Leicester
|
P value* | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enema | Picolax | Difference in % (95% CI) | Enema | Picolax | Enema | Picolax | ||||
| Sent bowel preparation | 721 | 721 | 290 | 299 | 431 | 422 | ||||
| Attended for screening | 676 (94) | 629 (87) | 7 (4 to 10) | 271 (93) | 265 (89) | 405 (94) | 364 (86) | 0.43 | ||
| Attended and used allocated preparation at home | 608 (84) | 566 (79) | 5 (2 to 10) | 248† (86) | 237 (79) | 360 (84) | 329 (78) | 0.79 | ||
| Attended but refused to use allocated preparation at home: | 67 (9) | 63 (9) | 0 (−2 to 4) | 23 (8) | 28 (9) | 44 (10) | 35 (8) | 0.28 | ||
| Used alternative preparation at home | 18 (2) | 27 (4) | −1 (−3 to 1) | 4 (1) | 12 (4) | 14 (3) | 15 (4) | 0.15 | ||
| Used enema in unit | 49 (7) | 36 (5) | 2 (−1 to 4) | 19 (7) | 16 (5) | 30 (7) | 20 (5) | 0.67 | ||
*
Significance test for homogeneity of bowel preparation effect between Welwyn Garden City and Leicester
†
One subject did not complete a bowel preparation questionnaire and is therefore not included in analyses of acceptability and efficacy.