Long-term follow-up in patients with coeliac disease in the pandemic-era: a view from Sheffield the NHS England national centre for adult coeliac disease.

Q3 Medicine
Nick Trott, Suneil A Raju, Anupam Rej, Olivia Hoffman, William Holland, James R Bebb, Leah Seamark, Marianne Williams, Cristian Costas Batlle, Yvonne M Jeanes, Luca Elli, David S Sanders
{"title":"Long-term follow-up in patients with coeliac disease in the pandemic-era: a view from Sheffield the NHS England national centre for adult coeliac disease.","authors":"Nick Trott,&nbsp;Suneil A Raju,&nbsp;Anupam Rej,&nbsp;Olivia Hoffman,&nbsp;William Holland,&nbsp;James R Bebb,&nbsp;Leah Seamark,&nbsp;Marianne Williams,&nbsp;Cristian Costas Batlle,&nbsp;Yvonne M Jeanes,&nbsp;Luca Elli,&nbsp;David S Sanders","doi":"10.22037/ghfbb.v16i2.2637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore patients' follow-up preferences.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Optimal follow-up strategies for patients with coeliac disease remain a subject of debate. Research suggests patients' prefer review by dietitians with a doctor available as required.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with coeliac disease under review at our centre, completed a questionnaire assessing their views on what makes follow-up useful based on specific criteria. Bloods tests, symptoms review, dietary assessment, opportunity to ask questions and reassurance. Patients' preferences between follow-up with a hospital doctor, a hospital dietitian, a hospital dietitian with a doctor available, a general practitioner, no follow-up or access when needed were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>138 adult patients completed the questionnaire, 80% of patients reported following a strict gluten free diet (mean diagnosis was 7.2 years). Overall, 60% found their follow-up to be 'very useful' valuing their review of blood tests and symptoms (71%) reassurance (60%) and opportunity to ask questions (58%). Follow-up by a dietitian with a doctor available was the most preferred option of review (p<0.001) except when compared to hospital doctor (p=0.75). Novel modalities of follow-up such as telephone and video reviews were regarded as of equal value to face-to-face appointments (65% and 62% respectively). Digital applications were significantly less preferable (38%, p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Follow-up by a dietitian with a doctor available as needed was the most preferred follow-up method. However, in this study follow-up by a dietitian with doctor available and hospital doctor alone was statistically equivalent. Many patients consider telephone and video follow-up of equal value to face-to-face reviews.</p>","PeriodicalId":12636,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology and Hepatology From Bed to Bench","volume":"16 2","pages":"158-166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/10/c0/GHFBB-16-158.PMC10404824.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology and Hepatology From Bed to Bench","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/ghfbb.v16i2.2637","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To explore patients' follow-up preferences.

Background: Optimal follow-up strategies for patients with coeliac disease remain a subject of debate. Research suggests patients' prefer review by dietitians with a doctor available as required.

Methods: Patients with coeliac disease under review at our centre, completed a questionnaire assessing their views on what makes follow-up useful based on specific criteria. Bloods tests, symptoms review, dietary assessment, opportunity to ask questions and reassurance. Patients' preferences between follow-up with a hospital doctor, a hospital dietitian, a hospital dietitian with a doctor available, a general practitioner, no follow-up or access when needed were also evaluated.

Results: 138 adult patients completed the questionnaire, 80% of patients reported following a strict gluten free diet (mean diagnosis was 7.2 years). Overall, 60% found their follow-up to be 'very useful' valuing their review of blood tests and symptoms (71%) reassurance (60%) and opportunity to ask questions (58%). Follow-up by a dietitian with a doctor available was the most preferred option of review (p<0.001) except when compared to hospital doctor (p=0.75). Novel modalities of follow-up such as telephone and video reviews were regarded as of equal value to face-to-face appointments (65% and 62% respectively). Digital applications were significantly less preferable (38%, p<0.001).

Conclusion: Follow-up by a dietitian with a doctor available as needed was the most preferred follow-up method. However, in this study follow-up by a dietitian with doctor available and hospital doctor alone was statistically equivalent. Many patients consider telephone and video follow-up of equal value to face-to-face reviews.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

大流行时期乳糜泻患者的长期随访:来自谢菲尔德NHS英格兰国家成人乳糜泻中心的观点
目的:探讨患者的随访偏好。背景:乳糜泻患者的最佳随访策略仍然是一个有争议的话题。研究表明,患者更喜欢在需要的时候由营养师和医生进行检查。方法:在本中心接受检查的乳糜泻患者完成一份问卷,评估他们对基于特定标准的随访有用性的看法。血液检查、症状检查、饮食评估、提问和安慰的机会。还评估了患者对医院医生随访、医院营养师随访、有医生的医院营养师随访、全科医生随访、不随访或在需要时就诊的偏好。结果:138名成年患者完成了问卷调查,80%的患者报告了严格的无麸质饮食(平均诊断为7.2年)。总体而言,60%的人认为他们的随访“非常有用”,重视他们对血液检查和症状的检查(71%),保证(60%)和提问的机会(58%)。由营养师和有医生陪同的随访是最受欢迎的随访方式(结论:由营养师和有医生陪同的随访是最受欢迎的随访方式。然而,在这项研究中,由营养师和医生进行的随访和仅由医院医生进行的随访在统计上是相等的。许多患者认为电话和视频随访与面对面复查同等重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信