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 - 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 -