↓ Skip to main content

Acceptability of the Cytosponge procedure for detecting Barrett's oesophagus: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Acceptability of the Cytosponge procedure for detecting Barrett's oesophagus: a qualitative study
Published in
BMJ Open, March 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013901
Pubmed ID
Authors

Madeleine Freeman, Judith Offman, Fiona M Walter, Peter Sasieni, Samuel G Smith

Abstract

To investigate the acceptability of the Cytosponge, a novel sampling device to detect Barrett's oesophagus (BE), a precursor to oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), among people with risk factors for this condition. A qualitative study using semistructured interviews and focus group discussions. Data were explored by three researchers using thematic analysis. Community setting in London, UK. A recruitment company identified 33 adults (17 men, 16 women) aged 50-69 years with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a risk factor for BE. The majority of participants were white British (73%). The focus groups were stratified by gender and education. 10 individuals were interviewed and 23 participated in four focus groups. 3 key themes emerged from the data: the anticipated physical experience, preferences for the content of information materials and comparisons with the current gold-standard test. Overall acceptability was high, but there was initial concern about the physical experience of taking the test, including swallowing and extracting the Cytosponge. These worries were reduced after handling the device and a video demonstration of the procedure. Knowledge of the relationship between GERD, BE and EAC was poor, and some suggested they would prefer not to know about the link when being offered the Cytosponge. Participants perceived the Cytosponge to be more comfortable, practical and economical than endoscopy. These qualitative data suggest the Cytosponge was acceptable to the majority of participants with risk factors for BE, and could be used as a first-line test to investigate GERD symptoms. Concerns about the physical experience of the test were alleviated through multimedia resources. The development of patient information materials is an important next step to ensuring patients are adequately informed and reassured about the procedure. Patient stakeholders should be involved in this process to ensure their concerns and preferences are considered. ISRCTN68382401; pre-results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Unspecified 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 42%
Unspecified 5 16%
Psychology 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 January 2018.
All research outputs
#484,541
of 12,376,381 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#1,022
of 9,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,381
of 260,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#49
of 400 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,376,381 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 400 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.