AIMS: To evaluate the evidence relating to attitudes towards PEG feeding and to determine potential barriers to the acceptance of PEG tube feeding.
METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. The search for the studies was performed without restrictions by using the terms "PEG", "percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy", "enteral feeding", "attitude", "perception" and "opinion". Qualitative and quantitative studies were included. Quality of studies was assessed with the Alberta checklists.
RESULTS: From 981 articles, 17 articles were included in the final analysis. Twelve qualitative and four quantitative studies were considered of good quality. Seven of the 14 studies reported positive attitudes towards PEG. Three major themes were identified in terms of barriers to PEG feeding: lack of choice (poor knowledge, inadequate competency and skills, insufficient time given, not enough information given, lack of guidelines or protocol, resource constraints), confronting mortality (choosing life or death, risk of procedure) and weighing alternatives (adapting lifestyle, family influences, attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs), fear and anxiety).
CONCLUSIONS: Only half of the reviewed studies reported positive perceptions towards PEG feeding. The themes identified in our systematic review will guide the development of interventions to alter the current attitudes and barriers towards PEG tube feeding.
METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PubMed databases through to December 2013 using the terms "percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy", "gastrostomy", "PEG", "nasogastric", "nasogastric tube", "nasogastric feeding" and "intubation". We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs which compared PEG with NG feeding in individuals with non-stroke dysphagia.
RESULTS: 9 studies involving 847 participants were included in the final analysis, including two randomized trials. Pooled analysis indicated no significant difference in the risk of pneumonia [relative risk (RR) = 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.87-1.60] and overall complications [relative risk (RR) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.63-1.02] between PEG and NG feeding. A meta-analysis was not possible for mortality and nutritional outcomes, but three studies suggested improved mortality outcomes with PEG feeding while two out of three studies reported PEG feeding to be better from a nutritional perspective.
CONCLUSIONS: Firm conclusions could not be derived on whether PEG feeding is beneficial over NG feeding in older persons with non-stroke dysphagia, as previously published literature were unclear or had a high risk of bias. A well-designed and adequately powered RCT, which includes carer strain and quality of life as outcome measures is therefore urgently needed.