Patient preferences for the diagnosis of coeliac disease: A discrete choice experiment.

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Mohamed G Shiha, Nyantara Wickramasekera, Suneil A Raju, Hugo A Penny, David S Sanders
{"title":"Patient preferences for the diagnosis of coeliac disease: A discrete choice experiment.","authors":"Mohamed G Shiha, Nyantara Wickramasekera, Suneil A Raju, Hugo A Penny, David S Sanders","doi":"10.1002/ueg2.12651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is potential for a paradigm shift from a biopsy-to a serology-based diagnosis of coeliac disease in selected adult patients. However, it remains unknown if this approach would be acceptable to patients. We aimed to explore patients' preferences regarding the no-biopsy approach for coeliac disease diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a discrete choice experiment survey containing 12 different scenarios with two possible alternatives (endoscopy & biopsy or serology) to estimate patient preferences. The scenarios were based on 5 attributes: risk of false positive results, risk of missed diagnosis, waiting time to start treatment, risk of complications, discomfort, or pain. Patient preferences and the relative importance of the attributes were estimated using a mixed logit model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 385 people (70.6% female, 98.2% white) across the four nations of the United Kingdom completed the survey. Respondents preferred a serology-based diagnosis over endoscopy and duodenal biopsies (59% vs. 41%, β coefficient 1.54, p < 0.001). Diagnostic test accuracy (p < 0.001), shorter waiting time to start treatment (p < 0.001), and discomfort levels during the procedure (p < 0.001) were the most important attributes to respondents. The risk of complications, including perforation and bleeding, did not significantly influence respondents' choices. Respondents with previous endoscopy experience were more willing to undergo endoscopy compared with those who never had one.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The no-biopsy approach to diagnosing coeliac disease is acceptable and preferred by patients over endoscopy and biopsy. Our findings highlight the importance of patient-centred care and shared decision-making in guiding diagnostic strategies for optimal patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":23444,"journal":{"name":"United European Gastroenterology Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"United European Gastroenterology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.12651","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is potential for a paradigm shift from a biopsy-to a serology-based diagnosis of coeliac disease in selected adult patients. However, it remains unknown if this approach would be acceptable to patients. We aimed to explore patients' preferences regarding the no-biopsy approach for coeliac disease diagnosis.

Methods: We developed a discrete choice experiment survey containing 12 different scenarios with two possible alternatives (endoscopy & biopsy or serology) to estimate patient preferences. The scenarios were based on 5 attributes: risk of false positive results, risk of missed diagnosis, waiting time to start treatment, risk of complications, discomfort, or pain. Patient preferences and the relative importance of the attributes were estimated using a mixed logit model.

Results: In total, 385 people (70.6% female, 98.2% white) across the four nations of the United Kingdom completed the survey. Respondents preferred a serology-based diagnosis over endoscopy and duodenal biopsies (59% vs. 41%, β coefficient 1.54, p < 0.001). Diagnostic test accuracy (p < 0.001), shorter waiting time to start treatment (p < 0.001), and discomfort levels during the procedure (p < 0.001) were the most important attributes to respondents. The risk of complications, including perforation and bleeding, did not significantly influence respondents' choices. Respondents with previous endoscopy experience were more willing to undergo endoscopy compared with those who never had one.

Conclusion: The no-biopsy approach to diagnosing coeliac disease is acceptable and preferred by patients over endoscopy and biopsy. Our findings highlight the importance of patient-centred care and shared decision-making in guiding diagnostic strategies for optimal patient outcomes.

患者对乳糜泻诊断的偏好:离散选择实验
背景:在选定的成年患者中,有可能出现从活检到基于血清学诊断的模式转变。然而,患者能否接受这种方法仍是个未知数。我们的目的是探索患者对不进行活检诊断乳糜泻的偏好:方法:我们开发了一个离散选择实验调查,其中包含 12 种不同的情景,有两种可能的选择(内窥镜检查和活检或血清学检查),以估计患者的偏好。这些情景基于 5 个属性:假阳性结果风险、漏诊风险、开始治疗的等待时间、并发症风险、不适或疼痛。采用混合对数模型对患者的偏好和属性的相对重要性进行了估算:英国四个国家共有 385 人(70.6% 为女性,98.2% 为白人)完成了调查。与内窥镜检查和十二指肠活组织检查相比,受访者更倾向于血清学诊断(59% 对 41%,β 系数 1.54,p 结论:不进行活组织检查的诊断方法可能更准确:与内镜检查和活组织检查相比,患者更愿意接受不进行活组织检查的方法来诊断乳糜泻。我们的研究结果凸显了以患者为中心的护理和共同决策在指导诊断策略以获得最佳疗效方面的重要性。
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
United European Gastroenterology Journal
United European Gastroenterology Journal GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
147
期刊介绍: United European Gastroenterology Journal (UEG Journal) is the official Journal of the United European Gastroenterology (UEG), a professional non-profit organisation combining all the leading European societies concerned with digestive disease. UEG’s member societies represent over 22,000 specialists working across medicine, surgery, paediatrics, GI oncology and endoscopy, which makes UEG a unique platform for collaboration and the exchange of knowledge.
×
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