TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative assessment of patient preferences and tolerability in barrett esophagus screening
AU - Blevins, Christopher H.
AU - Egginton, Jason S.
AU - Shah, Nilay D.
AU - Johnson, Michele L.
AU - Iyer, Prasad G.
N1 - Funding Information:
Received for publication October 9, 2017; accepted December 8, 2017. From the Divisions of *Gastroenterology and Hepatology; ‡Healthcare Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic; and †Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. This work was supported by CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR000135 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and funded by the National Institutes of Health (grant RC4DK090413) and the Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences. The authors declare that they have nothing to disclose. Address correspondence to: Prasad G. Iyer, MD, MS, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (e-mail: iyer.prasad@mayo.edu). Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000991
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2018/11/1
Y1 - 2018/11/1
N2 - Goals: To determine patient preference for the Barrett esophagus (BE) screening techniques. Background: Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) are both potential techniques for BE screening. However, systematic assessment of patient preference for these 2 techniques is lacking. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of BE screening modalities, we measured short-term patient preferences for the following approaches: in-clinic uTNE (huTNE), mobile-based uTNE (muTNE), and sEGD using a novel assessment instrument. Study: Consenting community patients without known BE were randomly assigned to receive huTNE, muTNE, or sEGD, followed by a telephone administered preference and tolerability assessment instrument 24 hours after study procedures. Patient preference was measured by the waiting trade-off method. Results: In total, 201 patients completed screening with huTNE (n=71), muTNE (n=71), or sEGD (n=59), and a telephone interview. Patients' preferences for sEGD and uTNE using the waiting trade-off method were comparable (P=0.51). Although tolerability scores were superior for sEGD (P<0.001) compared with uTNE, scores for uTNE examinations were acceptable. Conclusions: Patient preference is comparable between sEGD and uTNE for diagnostic examinations conducted in an endoscopy suite or in a mobile setting. Given acceptable tolerability, uTNE may be a viable alternative to sEGD for BE screening.
AB - Goals: To determine patient preference for the Barrett esophagus (BE) screening techniques. Background: Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) are both potential techniques for BE screening. However, systematic assessment of patient preference for these 2 techniques is lacking. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of BE screening modalities, we measured short-term patient preferences for the following approaches: in-clinic uTNE (huTNE), mobile-based uTNE (muTNE), and sEGD using a novel assessment instrument. Study: Consenting community patients without known BE were randomly assigned to receive huTNE, muTNE, or sEGD, followed by a telephone administered preference and tolerability assessment instrument 24 hours after study procedures. Patient preference was measured by the waiting trade-off method. Results: In total, 201 patients completed screening with huTNE (n=71), muTNE (n=71), or sEGD (n=59), and a telephone interview. Patients' preferences for sEGD and uTNE using the waiting trade-off method were comparable (P=0.51). Although tolerability scores were superior for sEGD (P<0.001) compared with uTNE, scores for uTNE examinations were acceptable. Conclusions: Patient preference is comparable between sEGD and uTNE for diagnostic examinations conducted in an endoscopy suite or in a mobile setting. Given acceptable tolerability, uTNE may be a viable alternative to sEGD for BE screening.
KW - Barrett esophagus
KW - esophageal adenocarcinoma
KW - patient preferences
KW - screening
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041599692&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041599692&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000991
DO - 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000991
M3 - Article
C2 - 29369237
AN - SCOPUS:85041599692
SN - 0192-0790
VL - 52
SP - 880
EP - 884
JO - Journal of clinical gastroenterology
JF - Journal of clinical gastroenterology
IS - 10
ER -