Patients' intuitive judgments about surveillance endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus: a review and application to models of decision‐making
- Additional Document Info
- View All
Adherence to practice guidelines for endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus is equivocal with evidence of underutilization and overutilization. While physicians report strong agreement with and adherence to recommended surveillance endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD]) guidelines, less is known about modifiable barriers and facilitators shaping patients' adherence behaviors. The aim of this study is to conduct a structured literature review of studies exploring patients' perspectives regarding surveillance EGD and to place these results within a conceptual framework. A structured literature review of PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases with qualitative thematic analysis was performed. Six studies met eligibility criteria. Analysis of results identified five distinct themes. First, patients' objective cancer risk estimates are consistent with subjective risk perceptions, but neither is associated with EGD surveillance. Second, patients have strong beliefs in the benefits of cancer screening and surveillance and trust in their doctors. Third, anxiety and depression symptoms are related to risk perceptions and outcome expectancies of surveillance. Fourth, endoscopic surveillance itself has affective and physical consequences. Finally, health services and system variables are related to risk perception and EGD surveillance. These themes coherently fit within an integrated model of intuitive decision-making and health behaviors. Studies meeting eligibility criteria were heterogeneous in terms of their study objectives and findings. Quantitative meta-analyses of study findings could not be performed. To improve adherence, endoscopic surveillance programs should consider how patients intuitively frame risks and benefits and patients' emotional reactions to the endoscopy procedure, and focus on how physicians communicate recommendations.
author list (cited authors)
Hinojosa‐Lindsey, M., Arney, J., Heberlig, S., Kramer, J. R., Street, R. L., El‐Serag, H. B., & Naik, A. D.