Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Mar 2.
Published in final edited form as: Dis Esophagus. 2019 Jan 1;32(1):10.1093/dote/doy085. doi: 10.1093/dote/doy085

Table 4. Comparison between themes explored in the Cytosponge™ qualitative study14 and the Facebook video of the Cytosponge™, 10.

Themes from Qualitative Study (Freeman et al) Comparison to Facebook
Anticipated physical experience
  • -

    Risk of gagging or vomiting

  • -

    Risk of string detachment

 Seen within ‘Negative comments’ and ‘Questions’
  • -

    27.4% were related to the concerns about the risk of gagging or vomiting.

  • -

    16.9% of questions were related to concerns of Cytosponge string detachment
Information preferences
  • -

    Purpose of Cytosponge™

  • -

    Association between GERD, BE and EAC

  • -

    Side effects

  • -

    Accuracy of Cytosponge™ test

 Seen within ‘Questions’ category
  • -

    16.9% of questions were related to utility of Cytosponge™

  • -

    Not frequently encountered

  • -

    14.1 % of questions were related to concerns about the side effects of the procedure

  • -

    Not frequently encountered
Comparison with endoscopy
  • -

    Comfort and invasiveness

  • -

    Cost-effectiveness

 Seen within ‘Positive Comments’
  • -

    8.8% of ‘positive comments’ felt that the Cytosponge™ was less uncomfortable than endoscopy.

  • -

    1.3% of ‘positive comments’ felt that the Cytosponge™ was more cost-effective than endoscopy.

GERD; Gastro-esophageal reflux disease; BE, Barrett’s esophagus; EAC, esophageal adenocarcinoma