Premium
Faecal calprotectin: current usage and perceived beneficial effects of third‐party funding on rates of colonoscopy by Australian gastroenterologists
Author(s) -
Elnawsra O.,
Fok I.,
Sparrow M.,
Gibson P.,
Andrews J.,
Connor S.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
internal medicine journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.596
H-Index - 70
eISSN - 1445-5994
pISSN - 1444-0903
DOI - 10.1111/imj.13056
Subject(s) - medicine , irritable bowel syndrome , faecal calprotectin , colonoscopy , calprotectin , inflammatory bowel disease , disease , gastroenterology , family medicine , colorectal cancer , cancer
Background Studies have suggested a diagnostic role for faecal calprotectin ( FC ) in patients with gastroenterological disorders. Aim To investigate Australian gastroenterologists’ ( GE ) views on FC use and to elicit factors that affect physicians’ choices. Methods Electronic surveys were sent out to 405 consultants and 34 registrars in Australia. Respondents who answered <50% of the survey were excluded. Results In all, 140 participants provided a >50% response; 73% reported using FC in their clinical practice. Factors cited by non‐users in restricting their FC use included cost (24%), availability (47%) and familiarity (18%). Even among users, 69% cited funding as a major deciding factor; 98 and 86% of FC users believed that the test is a reliable method of differentiating between inflammatory bowel disease ( IBD ) and irritable bowel syndrome ( IBS ) and assessing for mucosal healing in IBD respectively. Of non‐users, 78 and 58%, respectively, would use FC to differentiate IBD from IBS and assess for mucosal healing in IBD , if FC testing was Medical Benefits Schedule ( MBS ) listed. Both users (79%) and non‐users (68%) reported that use of FC to defer or avoid colonoscopies was likely if the test was MBS funded. Conclusion Australian GE endorse the use of FC to discriminate between IBD and IBS , to check for mucosal healing in IBD and to reduce colonoscopy rates. Absence of MBS funding is an important factor contributing to the lack of usage of FC , in addition to the lack of familiarity with FC testing and availability.