Patient experiences of Cytosponge: a qualitative study.

Objective: Cytosponge is a novel technology for oesophageal pathology diagnosis. Uses include diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus and as a triage tool to prioritise upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patient experience is a key component of quality care. Previous work has developed endoscopy patient-reported experience measures. An appropriate tool to measure patient experience of Cytosponge is required. The aim of this work was to describe the patient experience of Cytosponge. Design/Method: Individuals aged 18 years or over, who had undergone Cytosponge from September 2020 to March 2021, were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. Thematic analysis was undertaken. Themes were organised into two overarching areas relating to patient experiences and patient perceptions of the test. Results: 19 patients underwent interview (aged 37-80 years, 13 male). In terms of patient experiences of Cytosponge, five themes were identified: emotional reaction; expectations; environment and physical process; sensory experience; communication and information. All themes were present across all procedural phases, aside from sensory experience which was only present during the test. With regard to perception of the test, two major themes were identified: test novelty (encompassing patient awareness of the test and reaction to the new test) and trusting the test results. Conclusion: Patients must remain central to novel technologies such as Cytosponge. Measuring patient experience is essential to achieve that. This study demonstrates five major themes which describe the patient experience of this procedure. These have been used to adapt the Newcastle ENDOPREM for use in Cytosponge.

Predicting the outcome of plantar heel pain in adults: a systematic review of prognostic factors.

BACKGROUND: Plantar Heel Pain (PHP) is a common disorder with many treatment pathways and is not self-limiting, hence prognostic information concerning recovery or recalcitrance is needed to guide practice. In this systematic review, we investigate which prognostic factors are associated with favourable or unfavourable PHP outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus and PubMed electronic bibliographic databases were searched for studies evaluating baseline patient characteristics associated with outcomes in prospective longitudinal cohorts or after specific interventions. Cohort, clinical prediction rule derivation and single arms of randomised controlled trials were included. Risk of bias was evaluated with method-specific tools and evidence certainty with GRADE. RESULTS: The review included five studies which evaluated 98 variables in 811 participants. Prognostic factors could be categorised as demographics, pain, physical and activity-related. Three factors including sex and bilateral symptoms (HR: 0.49[0.30-0.80], 0.33[0.15-0.72], respectively) were associated with a poor outcome in a single cohort study. The remaining four studies reported twenty factors associated with a favourable outcome following shockwave therapy, anti-pronation taping and orthoses. Heel spur (AUC = 0.88[0.82-0.93]), ankle plantar-flexor strength (Likelihood ratio (LR): 2.17[1.20-3.95]) and response to taping (LR = 2.17[1.19-3.90]) were the strongest factors predicting medium-term improvement. Overall, the study quality was low. A gap map analysis revealed an absence of research that included psychosocial factors. CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of biomedical factors predict favourable or unfavourable PHP outcomes. High quality, adequately powered, prospective studies are required to better understand PHP recovery and should evaluate the prognostic value of a wide range of variables, including psychosocial factors.

Reducing the question burden of patient reported outcome measures using Bayesian networks.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are questionnaires completed by patients about aspects of their health status. They are a vital part of learning health systems as they are the primary source of information about important outcomes that are best assessed by patients such as pain, disability, anxiety and depression. The volume of questions can easily become burdensome. Previous techniques reduced this burden by dynamically selecting questions from question item banks which are specifically built for different latent constructs being measured. These techniques analyzed the information function between each question in the item bank and the measured construct based on item response theory then used this information function to dynamically select questions by computerized adaptive testing. Here we extend those ideas by using Bayesian Networks (BNs) to enable Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) for efficient and accurate question selection on widely-used existing PROMs. BNs offer more comprehensive probabilistic models of the connections between different PROM questions, allowing the use of information theoretic techniques to select the most informative questions. We tested our methods using five clinical PROM datasets, demonstrating that answering a small subset of questions selected with CAT has similar predictions and error to answering all questions in the PROM BN. Our results show that answering 30% - 75% questions selected with CAT had an average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.92 (min: 0.8 - max: 0.98) for predicting the measured constructs. BNs outperformed alternative CAT approaches with a 5% (min: 0.01% - max: 9%) average increase in the accuracy of predicting the responses to unanswered question items.

Online questionnaire, clinical and biomechanical measurements for outcome prediction of plantar heel pain: feasibility for a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Plantar heel pain (PHP) accounts for 11-15% of foot symptoms requiring professional care in adults. Recovery is variable, with no robust prognostic guides for sufferers, clinicians or researchers. Therefore, we aimed to determine the validity, reliability and feasibility of questionnaire, clinical and biomechanical measures selected to generate a prognostic model in a subsequent cohort study. METHODS: Thirty-six people (19 females & 17 males; 20-63 years) were recruited with equal numbers in each of three groups: people with PHP (PwPHP), other foot pain (PwOP) and healthy (H) controls. Eighteen people performed a questionnaire battery twice in a randomised order to determine online and face-to-face agreement. The remaining 18 completed the online questionnaire once, plus clinical measurements including strength and range of motion, mid-foot mobility, palpation and ultrasound assessment of plantar fascia. Nine of the same people underwent biomechanical assessment in the form of a graded loaded challenge augmenting walking with added external weight and amended step length on two occasions. Outcome measures were (1) feasibility of the data collection procedure, measurement time and other feedback; (2) establishing equivalence to usual procedures for the questionnaire battery; known-group validity for clinical and imaging measures; and initial validation and reliability of biomechanical measures. RESULTS: There were no systematic differences between online and face-to-face administration of questionnaires (p-values all > .05) nor an administration order effect (d = - 0.31-0.25). Questionnaire reliability was good or excellent (ICC2,1_absolute)(ICC 0.86-0.99), except for two subscales. Full completion of the survey took 29 ± 14 min. Clinically, PwPHP had significantly less ankle-dorsiflexion and hip internal-rotation compared to healthy controls [mean (±SD) for PwPHP-PwOP-H = 14°(±6)-18°(±8)-28°(±10); 43°(±4)- 45°(±9)-57°(±12) respectively; p < .02 for both]. Plantar fascia thickness was significantly higher in PwPHP (3.6(0.4) mm vs 2.9(0.4) mm, p = .01) than the other groups. The graded loading challenge demonstrated progressively increasing ground reaction forces. CONCLUSION: Online questionnaire administration was valid therefore facilitating large cohort recruitment and being relevant to remote service evaluation and research. The physical and ultrasound examination revealed the expected differences between groups, while the graded loaded challenge progressively increases load and warrants future research. Clinician and researchers can be confident about these methodological approaches and the cohort study, from which useful clinical tools should result, is feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Management of plantar heel pain: a best practice guide informed by a systematic review, expert clinical reasoning and patient values.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a best practice guide for managing people with plantar heel pain (PHP). METHODS: Mixed-methods design including systematic review, expert interviews and patient survey. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registries, reference lists and citation tracking. Semi-structured interviews with world experts and a patient survey. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any intervention for people with PHP in any language were included subject to strict quality criteria. Trials with a sample size greater than n=38 were considered for proof of efficacy. International experts were interviewed using a semi-structured approach and people with PHP were surveyed online. RESULTS: Fifty-one eligible trials enrolled 4351 participants, with 9 RCTs suitable to determine proof of efficacy for 10 interventions. Forty people with PHP completed the online survey and 14 experts were interviewed resulting in 7 themes and 38 subthemes. There was good agreement between the systematic review findings and interview data about taping (SMD: 0.47, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.88) and plantar fascia stretching (SMD: 1.21, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.63) for first step pain in the short term. Clinical reasoning advocated combining these interventions with education and footwear advice as the core self-management approach. There was good expert agreement with systematic review findings recommending stepped care management with focused shockwave for first step pain in the short-term (OR: 1.89, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.04), medium-term (SMD 1.31, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.01) and long-term (SMD 1.67, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.45) and radial shockwave for first step pain in the short term (OR: 1.66, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.76) and long term (OR: 1.78, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.96). We found good agreement to 'step care' using custom foot orthoses for general pain in the short term (SMD: 0.41, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.74) and medium term (SMD: 0.55, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.02). CONCLUSION: Best practice from a mixed-methods study synthesising systematic review with expert opinion and patient feedback suggests core treatment for people with PHP should include taping, stretching and individualised education. Patients who do not optimally improve may be offered shockwave therapy, followed by custom orthoses.