Two hundred and fifty patients were approached to answer the survey. One patient refused to participate and one was excluded due to inconsistent information. One patient did not answer whether they wanted a DVD, and a few data points were missing from other surveys (Tables and ). Thus, 248 patient surveys were available for analyses. Patients ranged in age from 19 to 87 years (mean 57.9 years). There were 238 patients (96%) who owned DVD players. There were 141 (57%) males, 183 (74%) had undergone a prior colonoscopy, and 123 (50%) had a prior history of polyps. Ten patients (4%) had a personal history of colorectal cancer, while 57 (23%) has a family history of colorectal cancer.
Patient interest in owning a DVD of their colonoscopy
The reasons for interest or lack interest in having a videorecording n (%)
Among the 248 patients, 201 (81%) were interested in obtaining a video recording of their colonoscopy. Among the factors age, gender, prior colonoscopy, polyp history, history of colorectal cancer, and family history of colorectal cancer, none of these predicted desire to have a video recording in univariate analyses. Multivariate analysis confirmed that none of the factors was associated with an interest in obtaining a video recording (Table ).
After a brief educational paragraph regarding polyp miss rates, interest in obtaining a video recording of colonoscopy was reassessed. One hundred thirty-five patients (54%) were more interested in video recording and none were less interested.
The most common reason for interest in having a video recording was “review” (68 patients, 27%), followed by “better records” (55 patients, 22%) and “better information” (43 patients, 17%) (Table ). The most common reason for lack of interest in obtaining video recording was “no benefit over pictures” (Table ).
There were 72 males (68%) and 84 females (60%) who stated they would be willing to pay for a video recording of their colonoscopy. A family history of colorectal cancer (odds ratio 2.09; 1.07-4.09) and younger age (odds ratio 1.39; 1.12-1.72 for each 10 year interval of decreasing age) predicted willingness to pay for a video recording in univariate analyses (Table ). In a multivariable analysis using a backward elimination procedure to remove non-significant factors, only younger age remained in the model, with a P value of 0.002.
Predictors of stated willingness to pay for a video recording (univariate analysis)
With regard to the amount patients were willing to pay, univariate analyses showed that a prior history of colorectal cancer was the only predictor of willingness to pay more (mean $354 vs $65, P = 0.001), if only those willing to pay were considered (Table ). If patients who were unwilling to pay for a video recording were assigned an amount of zero dollars, so that all patients interested in having a video recording were included, a prior history of colorectal cancer was the only predictor of the amount patients were willing to pay ($319 vs $40, P = 0.0001), though female gender approached significance ($76 vs $33, P = 0.06) (Table ). In multivariable analysis, prior colorectal cancer (P = 0.0003) and a family history of colorectal cancer (P = 0.02) were both predictive of a higher amounts patients were willing to pay, considering only those willing to pay. When all subjects were included, prior colorectal cancer (P = 0.0002) and a family history of colorectal cancer (P = 0.001) remained predictive of amount willing to pay for a video recording.
Amounts patients were willing to pay for a video recording (univariate analysis)