Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2020
Is Peer Support in Group Clinics as Effective as Traditional Individual Appointments? The First Study in Patients With Celiac Disease.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rej Anupam, Trott Nick, Kurien Matthew, Branchi Federica, Richman Emile, Subramanian Sreedhar, Sanders David Surendran
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Celiac disease (CD) is common, affecting approximately 1% of the population. The cornerstone of management is a gluten-free diet, with dietetic advice being the key to aiding implementation. The aim of the study was to assess group clinics in comparison with traditional individual appointments.
METHODS: Patients with a new diagnosis of CD, confirmed histologically, were prospectively recruited over 18 months in Sheffield, United Kingdom. Patients received either a group clinic or traditional one-to-one appointment, led by a dietitian. Quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, as well as biochemical parameters being recorded. Patients were followed up at 3 months, where adherence scores were assessed as well as biochemical parameters and quality of life questionnaires being completed.
RESULTS: Sixty patients with CD were prospectively recruited and received either an individual (n = 30) or group clinic (n = 30). A statistically significant reduction in tissue transglutaminase was noted following group clinics (mean 58.5, SD 43.4 U/mL vs mean 13.2, SD 5.7 U/mL, P < 0.01). No significant differences in baseline and follow-up biochemical parameters between one-to-one and group clinics were noted. At follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference between mean gluten-free diet adherence scores (mean 3.1, SD 0.4 vs mean 3.1, SD 0.7, P = 0.66) between one-to-one and group clinics.
DISCUSSION: This first study assessing group clinics in CD demonstrates they are as effective as traditional one-to-one clinics, with the added benefits of peer support and greater efficiency, with an estimated 54% reduction of dietetic resources.
METHODS: Patients with a new diagnosis of CD, confirmed histologically, were prospectively recruited over 18 months in Sheffield, United Kingdom. Patients received either a group clinic or traditional one-to-one appointment, led by a dietitian. Quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, as well as biochemical parameters being recorded. Patients were followed up at 3 months, where adherence scores were assessed as well as biochemical parameters and quality of life questionnaires being completed.
RESULTS: Sixty patients with CD were prospectively recruited and received either an individual (n = 30) or group clinic (n = 30). A statistically significant reduction in tissue transglutaminase was noted following group clinics (mean 58.5, SD 43.4 U/mL vs mean 13.2, SD 5.7 U/mL, P < 0.01). No significant differences in baseline and follow-up biochemical parameters between one-to-one and group clinics were noted. At follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference between mean gluten-free diet adherence scores (mean 3.1, SD 0.4 vs mean 3.1, SD 0.7, P = 0.66) between one-to-one and group clinics.
DISCUSSION: This first study assessing group clinics in CD demonstrates they are as effective as traditional one-to-one clinics, with the added benefits of peer support and greater efficiency, with an estimated 54% reduction of dietetic resources.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedAnxietyCeliac DiseaseDepressionFemaleGTP-Binding ProteinsHumansImmunoglobulin AMaleMiddle AgedNutritionistsPeer GroupProtein Glutamine gamma Glutamyltransferase 2Quality of LifeShared Medical AppointmentsSocial SupportTransglutaminasesTreatment Adherence and ComplianceTreatment OutcomeUnited Kingdom