Feasibility and acceptability of breath research in primary care: a prospective, cross-sectional, observational study. Issue 4 (13th April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Woodfield, Georgia; Belluomo, Ilaria; Boshier, Piers R; Waller, Annabelle; Fayyad, Maya; von Wagner, Christian; Cross, Amanda J; Hanna, George B
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 11:Issue 4(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-04-13
• Subjects: gastrointestinal tumours -- primary care -- gastroenterology; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044691
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of breath research in primary care. Design: Non-randomised, prospective, mixed-methods cross-sectional observational study. Setting: Twenty-six urban primary care practices. Participants: 1002 patients aged 18–90 years with gastrointestinal symptoms. Main outcome measures: During the first 6 months of the study (phase 1), feasibility of patient enrolment using face-to-face, telephone or SMS-messaging (Short Message Service) enrolment strategies, as well as processes for breath testing at local primary care practices, were evaluated. A mixed-method iterative study design was adopted and outcomes evaluated using weekly Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, focus groups and general practitioner (GP) questionnaires. During the second 6 months of the study (phase 2), patient and GP acceptability of the breath test and testing process was assessed using questionnaires. In addition a 'single practice' recruitment model was compared with a 'hub and spoke' centralised recruitment model with regards to enrolment ability and patient acceptability. Throughout the study feasibility of the collection of a large number of breath samples by clinical staff over multiple study sites was evaluated and quantified by the analysis of these samples using mass spectrometry. Results: 1002 patients were recruited within 192 sampling days. Both 'single practice' and 'hub and spoke' recruitment models were effective with an average of 5.3 and 4.3 patients accrued per day, respectively. The 'hub and spoke' model with SMS messaging was the most efficient combined method of patient accrual. Acceptability of the test was high among both patients and GPs. The methodology for collection, handling and analysis of breath samples was effective, with 95% of samples meeting quality criteria. Conclusions: Large-scale breath testing in primary care was feasible and acceptable. This study provides a practical framework to guide the design of Phase III trials examining the performance of breath testing in primary care.