Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 59, Issue 7, pp 1378–1385 | Cite as

Patient Experiences with Surveillance Endoscopy: A Qualitative Study

  • Jennifer Arney
  • Marilyn Hinojosa-Lindsey
  • Richard L. StreetJr.
  • Jason Hou
  • Hashem B. El-Serag
  • Aanand D. Naik
Original Article



Prior studies examining patterns of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) demonstrate variable adherence to practice guidelines. In prior studies, memories of endoscopic experiences shaped overall perceptions and subsequent adherence behaviors, but the specific elements of that experience are unclear. We sought to identify specific elements of the EGD experience that frame overall perceptions of surveillance.


We conducted structured in-depth, qualitative interviews with BE patients with a range of severity (non-dysplastic, low-grade and high-grade dysplasia) who recently completed an EGD. Data collection continued until we reached thematic saturation (n = 20). We applied principles of framework analysis to identify emerging themes regarding patients’ salient EGD experiences. We validated our coding scheme through multidisciplinary consensus meetings comprised of clinician (gastroenterologist and internist) and non-clinician investigators (sociologist and public health expert).


Patient experiences can be conceptualized within a temporal model: prior to, during, and after endoscopy. The most memorable aspects of the EGD experience include physician-patient communication prior to EGD, wait time at the endoscopy center, interpersonal interactions at the time of the EGD, level of pain or discomfort with the procedure, level of trust in the physician following EGD, and gaining a sense of control over BE.


We identified six salient memories before, during, and after the procedure that shape patients’ perceptions of the EGD experience. We offer recommendations for measuring patient experiences using a composite of validated survey items. Future studies should test the relation of patient experience measures and adherence to surveillance EGD.


Qualitative research Endoscopy Barrett’s esophagus screening Patient experience Adherence 



This work was supported by NIH grant RC4CA155844 awarded to Dr. El-Serag and the Texas Digestive Disease Center NIH DK58338. Additional resources and support was provided by the Houston VA Health Services Research & Development Center of Innovation (CIN 13-413) and American College of Gastroenterology Junior Faculty Development Award (J.K. Hou). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or National Institutes of Health. Dr. Arney received support from the VA Office of Academic Affiliations Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Health Services Research.

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Sharma P, McQuaid K, Dent J, et al. A critical review of the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus: the AGA Chicago workshop. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:310–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pohl H, Welch HG. The role of overdiagnosis and reclassification in the marked increase of esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:142–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:225–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’Connor JB, Falk GW, Richter JE. The incidence of adenocarcinoma and dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: report on the Cleveland Clinic Barrett’s Esophagus Registry. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:2037–2042.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drewitz DJ, Sampliner RE, Garewal HS. The incidence of adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus: a prospective study of 170 patients followed 4.8 years. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;92:212–215.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper GS, Kou TD, Chak A. Receipt of previous diagnoses and endoscopy and outcome from esophageal adenocarcinoma: a population-based study with temporal trends. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:1356–1362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hirota WK, Zuckerman MJ, Adler DG, et al. ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the surveillance of premalignant conditions of the upper GI tract. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:570–580.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang KK, Sampliner RE. Practice parameters committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:788–797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation. Choosing Wisely: Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question. Website 2013. http://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/american-gastroenterological-association/. Accessed May 13, 2013.
  10. 10.
    Crockett SD, Lipkus IM, Bright SD, et al. Overutilization of endoscopic surveillance in nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus: a multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:23–31.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    El-Serag HB, Duan Z, Hinojosa-Lindsey M, et al. Practice patterns of surveillance endoscopy in a Veterans Affairs database of 29,504 patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76(4):743–755.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hinojosa-Lindsey M, Arney J, Heberlig S, et al. Patients’ intuitive judgments about surveillance endoscopy in Barrett’s Esophagus: a review and application to models of decision making. Dis Esophagus. 2013;26:682–689. doi: 10.1111/dote.12028.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crockett SD, Lippmann QK, Dellon ES, et al. Health related quality of life in patients with Barrett’s Esophagus: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7(6):613–623.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erskine A, Morley S, Pearce S. Memory for pain: a review. Pain. 1990;41(3):255–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fredrickson BL, Kahneman D. Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Redelmeier DA, Kahneman D. Patient’s memories of painful medical treatments: real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain. 1996;66(1):3–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Redelmeier DA, Katz J, Kahneman D. Memories of colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Pain. 2003;104:187–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morse J. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res. 1995;5:147–149. doi: 10.1177/104973239500500201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aita VA, Mcllvain HE, eds. An armchair adventure in case study research. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage; 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kramer JR, Arney J, Chen J, et al. Patient-centered, comparative effectiveness of esophageal cancer screening: protocol for a comparative effectiveness research study to inform guidelines for evidence-based approach to screening and surveillance endoscopy. BMC Health Services Res. 2012;12:288.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. London, UK: Sage Publications; 2002:305–29.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gubrium JF, Holstein JA. The New Language of Qualitative Method. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Waitzken H. The Politics of Medical Encounters: How Patients and Doctors Deal with Social Problems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Larkins AS, Windsor AVC, Trebble TM. An evaluation of patient attitudes to the gastroenterology outpatient experience. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25:44–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Street RL, Makoul G, Arora NK, et al. How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Counsel. 2009;74(3):295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Naik AD. On the road to patient-centeredness. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2013;173(3):218–219.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Naik AD, Kallen M, Walder A, et al. Improving hypertension control in diabetes: the effect of collaborative and proactive health communication. Circulation. 2008;117(11):1361–1368.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McEntire J, Sahota J, Hynes T, et al. An evaluation of patient attitudes to colonoscopy and the importance of endoscopist interaction and the endoscopy environment to satisfaction and value. BMC Health Services Res. 2013;13:22.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Naik AD, Hinojosa-Lindsey M, Arney J, et al. Choosing Wisely and the perceived drivers of endoscopy use. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(7):753–755.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Manary MP, Boulding W, Staelin R, et al. The patient experience and health outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:201–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Patient Experience Measures from the CAHPS Clinician and Group Surveys; 2012. www.cahps.ahrq.gov/clinician_group/cgsurvey/patientexperiencemeasurescgsurveys.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2013.
  32. 32.
    Essink-Bot ML, Kruijshaar ME, Bac DJ, et al. Different perceptions of the burden of upper GI endoscopy: an empirical study in three patient groups. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1309–1318.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gordon HS, Street RL Jr, Sharf BF, et al. Racial differences in trust and lung cancer patients’ perceptions of physician communication. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:904–909.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    NIH Toolbox: For assessment of neurological and behavioral function. www.nihtoolbox.org. Accessed on June 3, 2013.
  35. 35.
    Cook KF, Dunn W, Griffith JW, et al. Pain assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology. 2013;80:S49. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b012e3182872e80.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vernon SW, Myers RE, Tilley BC. Development of an instrument to measure factors related to colorectal cancer screen adherence. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997;6:825–832.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (Outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Arney
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marilyn Hinojosa-Lindsey
    • 2
    • 3
  • Richard L. StreetJr.
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Jason Hou
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hashem B. El-Serag
    • 2
    • 3
  • Aanand D. Naik
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of Houston-Clear LakeHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Health Services Research and Development Center of Innovation in Quality, Effectiveness and SafetyMichael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (152)HoustonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Medicine, Section on Health Services ResearchBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Department of CommunicationTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations