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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.12651 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
New insights into the goals of transgender male versus non-binary individuals considering metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender-affirming surgery.
J Sex Med
January 2025
Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH 03756, United States.
Background: Understanding patient goals for metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender-affirming surgery (MaPGAS) is paramount to achieving satisfactory, preference-sensitive outcomes, yet there is a lack of understanding of MaPGAS priorities and how these may vary between transgender men and non-binary individuals assigned female at birth (AFAB).
Aim: To understand the surgical goals of transgender men and non-binary individuals AFAB considering MaPGAS.
Methods: An online survey was created following literature review and qualitative interviews and distributed via social media and a community health center to participants AFAB aged ≥18 years who had considered but not yet undergone MaPGAS.
Effective communication is crucial in pediatric palliative care and is essential to facilitate shared decision making between families and the health care team. This study explored the communication preferences of caregivers and health care specialists in Central-Eastern Europe, a region with unique cultural and health care dynamics. Through qualitative interviews, key communication style preferences and barriers were identified.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFComparison of behind-the-ear vs. off-the-ear speech processors in cochlear implants: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.
PLoS One
January 2025
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Background: Cochlear implants (CI) with off-the-ear (OTE) and behind-the-ear (BTE) speech processors differ in user experience and audiological performance, impacting speech perception, comfort, and satisfaction.
Objectives: This systematic review explores audiological outcomes (speech perception in quiet and noise) and non-audiological factors (device handling, comfort, cosmetics, overall satisfaction) of OTE and BTE speech processors in CI recipients.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA-S guidelines, examining Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Real-world implementation of pain science education and barriers to use in private practice physiotherapy settings: an Australia-wide cross-sectional survey.
Pain
January 2025
Innovation, IMPlementation And Clinical Translation (IIMPACT) in Health, University of South Australia, Kaurna Country, Adelaide, Australia.
Physiotherapists are critically positioned to integrate education into patient care, including pain science education (PSE) to enhance management and outcomes. Anecdotally, many physiotherapists report difficulty providing PSE in private practice settings. Here, we aimed to explore current PSE use, knowledge, and barriers to implementation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAre Randomized Trials Better? Comparison of Baseline Covariate Balance of a Propensity Score-Balanced Lumbar Spine IDE Trial and Comparable RCTs.
Global Spine J
January 2025
Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Department of Neurosurgery, Swedish Health Services, Seattle, WA, USA.
Study Design: Prospective Observational Propensity Score.
Objectives: Randomization may lead to bias when the treatment is unblinded and there is a strong patient preference for treatment arms (such as in spinal device trials). This report describes the rationale and methods utilized to develop a propensity score (PS) model for an investigational device exemption (IDE) trial (NCT03115983) to evaluate decompression and stabilization with an investigational dynamic sagittal tether (DST) vs decompression and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) for patients with symptomatic grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!