Supplementary Material for: Patient Experience and Preferences for the Assessment of Olfaction: The Patient International Clinical Assessment of Smell Survey

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and carries significant personal and societal burden of disease. Accurate assessment of olfaction is required for good clinical care and affords patients insight into their condition. However, the accuracy of assessment varies with technique used, and there is presently little standardisation of clinical practice. We therefore aimed to determine experience of and preferences for olfactory assessment in healthcare-seeking adults. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> An anonymous patient co-produced survey was developed in collaboration with a UK-based OD charity. Distribution was via their social media patient forum. “Healthcare seeking” adults (i.e., who had undergone olfactory assessment by a healthcare professional [any care level/speciality] or may do so in the future) were included. <b><i>Results:</i></b> 576 people (88.5% female, mean 46 years) responded. Hyposmia, parosmia, and retronasal OD were most frequently reported. 55.2% had been assessed by a healthcare professional – GP most commonly, followed by ENT. Importantly, only 15.6% and 16.9% of respondents had undergone systematic assessment with smell tests or symptom questionnaires, respectively. Most respondents had not undergone imaging. Mean satisfaction was higher in those seen by ENT. Interestingly, respondents prioritise orthonasal odour identification over other forms of smell test. Unfortunately, many felt that healthcare professionals (across specialities) were dismissive towards OD and lacked appropriate knowledge of both its pathophysiology and effects. We propose simple steps that can be taken to improve olfactory assessment, including education and establishment of robust referral networks. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> We hope these results and supporting practical recommendations will inform future service planning, funding allocation and research, as well as better aligning patient and clinician priorities.