General Practice and Primary Care - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30
-
ItemCancer beliefs in ethnic minority populations: a review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies(WILEY, 2017-01)People from ethnic minorities often experience poorer cancer outcomes, possibly due to later presentation to healthcare and later diagnosis. We aimed to identify common cancer beliefs in minority populations in developed countries, which can affect symptom appraisal and help seeking for symptomatic cancer. Our systematic review found 15 relevant qualitative studies, located in the United Kingdom (six), United States (five), Australia (two) and Canada (two) of African, African-American, Asian, Arabic, Hispanic and Latino minority groups. We conducted a meta-synthesis that found specific emotional reactions to cancer, knowledge and beliefs and interactions with healthcare services as contributing factors in help seeking for a cancer diagnosis. These findings may be useful to inform the development of interventions to facilitate cancer diagnosis in minority populations.
-
ItemThe Improving Rural Cancer Outcomes Trial: a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention to reduce time to diagnosis in rural cancer patients in Western Australia (vol 117, pg 1459, 2017)(NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP, 2018-03-20)This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.310.
-
ItemThe Aarhus statement on cancer diagnostic research: turning recommendations into new survey instruments(BMC, 2018-09-03)BACKGROUND: Over recent years there has been a growth in cancer early diagnosis (ED) research, which requires valid measurement of routes to diagnosis and diagnostic intervals. The Aarhus Statement, published in 2012, provided methodological guidance to generate valid data on these key pre-diagnostic measures. However, there is still a wide variety of measuring instruments of varying quality in published research. In this paper we test comprehension of self-completion ED questionnaire items, based on Aarhus Statement guidance, and seek input from patients, GPs and ED researchers to refine these questions. METHODS: We used personal interviews and consensus approaches to generate draft ED questionnaire items, then a combination of focus groups and telephone interviews to test comprehension and obtain feedback. A framework analysis approach was used, to identify themes and potential refinements to the items. RESULTS: We found that many of the questionnaire items still prompted uncertainty in respondents, in both routes to diagnosis and diagnostic interval measurement. Uncertainty was greatest in the context of multiple or vague symptoms, and potentially ambiguous time-points (such as 'date of referral'). CONCLUSIONS: There are limits on the validity of self-completion questionnaire responses, and refinements to the wording of questions may not be able to completely overcome these limitations. It's important that ED researchers use the best identifiable measuring instruments, but accommodate inevitable uncertainty in the interpretation of their results. Every effort should be made to increase clarity of questions and responses, and use of two or more data sources should be considered.
-
ItemThe LEAD study protocol: a mixed-method cohort study evaluating the lung cancer diagnostic and pre-treatment pathways of patients from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) backgrounds compared to patients from Anglo-Australian backgrounds(BMC, 2018-07-21)BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Early diagnosis and treatment is a key factor in reducing mortality and improving patient outcomes. To achieve this, it is important to understand the diagnostic pathways of cancer patients. Patients from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) are a vulnerable group for lung cancer with higher mortality rates than Caucasian patients. The aim of this study is to explore differences in the lung cancer diagnostic pathways between CALD and Anglo-Australian patients and factors underlying these differences. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational cohort study using a mixed-method approach. Quantitative data regarding time intervals in the lung cancer diagnostic pathways will be gathered via patient surveys, General practitioner (GP) review of general practice records, and case-note analysis of hospital records. Qualitative data will be gathered via structured interviews with lung cancer patients, GPs, and hospital specialists. The study will be conducted in five study sites across three states in Australia. Anglo-Australian patients and patients from five CALD groups (i.e., Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Italian and Vietnamese communities) will mainly be identified through the list of new cases presented at lung multidisciplinary team meetings. For the quantitative component, it is anticipated that 724 patients (362 Anglo-Australian and 362 CALD patients) will be recruited to obtain a final sample of 290 (145 per group) assuming a 50% patient survey completion rate and a 80% GP record review completion rate. For the qualitative component, 60 interviews with lung cancer patients (10 Anglo-Australian and 10 patients per CALD group), 20 interviews with GPs, and 20 interviews with specialists will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This is the first Australian study to compare the time intervals along the lung cancer diagnostic pathway between CALD and Anglo-Australian patients. The study will also explore the underlying patient, healthcare provider, and health system factors that influence the time intervals in the two groups. This information will improve our understanding of the effect of ethnicity on health outcomes among lung cancer patients and will inform future interventions aimed at early diagnosis and treatment for lung cancer, particularly patients from CALD backgrounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The project was retrospectively registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (registration number: ACTRN12617000957392 , date registered: 4th July 2017).
-
ItemThis isn't what mine looked like': a qualitative study of symptom appraisal and help seeking in people recently diagnosed with melanoma(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2014)OBJECTIVE: To explore symptom appraisal and help-seeking decisions among patients recently diagnosed with melanomas, and to compare experiences of people with 'thinner' (<1 mm) and 'thicker' (>2 mm) melanomas, as thickness at diagnosis is an important prognostic feature. METHODS: In-depth interviews with patients within 10 weeks of melanoma diagnosis explored the factors impacting on their pathways to diagnosis. Framework analysis, underpinned by the Model of Pathways to Treatment, was used to explore the data with particular focus on patients' beliefs and experiences, disease factors, and healthcare professional (HCP) influences. RESULTS: 63 patients were interviewed (29-93 years, 31 women, 30 thicker melanomas). All described their skin changes using rich lay vocabulary. Many included unassuming features such as 'just a little spot' as well as common features of changes in size, colour and shape. There appeared to be subtly different patterns of symptoms: descriptions of vertical growth, bleeding, oozing and itch were features of thicker melanomas irrespective of pathological type. Appraisal was influenced by explanations such as normal life changes, prior beliefs and whether skin changes matched known melanoma descriptions. Most decisions to seek help were triggered by common factors such as advice from family and friends. 11 patients reported previous reassurance about their skin changes by a HCP, with little guidance on monitoring change or when it would be appropriate to re-consult. CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with both thinner and thicker melanomas often did not initially recognise or interpret their skin changes as warning signs or prompts to seek timely medical attention. The findings provide guidance for melanoma awareness campaigns on more appropriate images, helpful descriptive language and the need to stress the often apparently innocuous nature of potentially serious skin changes. The importance of appropriate advice, monitoring and safety-netting procedures by HCPs for people presenting with skin changes is also highlighted.
-
ItemSymptoms and other factors associated with time to diagnosis and stage of lung cancer: a prospective cohort study(NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP, 2015-03-31)BACKGROUND: This prospective cohort study aimed to identify symptom and patient factors that influence time to lung cancer diagnosis and stage at diagnosis. METHODS: Data relating to symptoms were collected from patients upon referral with symptoms suspicious of lung cancer in two English regions; we also examined primary care and hospital records for diagnostic routes and diagnoses. Descriptive and regression analyses were used to investigate associations between symptoms and patient factors with diagnostic intervals and stage. RESULTS: Among 963 participants, 15.9% were diagnosed with primary lung cancer, 5.9% with other thoracic malignancies and 78.2% with non-malignant conditions. Only half the cohort had an isolated first symptom (475, 49.3%); synchronous first symptoms were common. Haemoptysis, reported by 21.6% of cases, was the only initial symptom associated with cancer. Diagnostic intervals were shorter for cancer than non-cancer diagnoses (91 vs 124 days, P=0.037) and for late-stage than early-stage cancer (106 vs 168 days, P=0.02). Chest/shoulder pain was the only first symptom with a shorter diagnostic interval for cancer compared with non-cancer diagnoses (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Haemoptysis is the strongest symptom predictor of lung cancer but occurs in only a fifth of patients. Programmes for expediting earlier diagnosis need to focus on multiple symptoms and their evolution.
-
ItemChronic disease prevention in primary care: how and when will genomics impact?(ROYAL COLL GENERAL PRACTITIONERS, 2014-07)
-
ItemImplementing a QCancer risk tool into general practice consultations: an exploratory study using simulated consultations with Australian general practitioners(NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP, 2015-03-31)BACKGROUND: Reducing diagnostic delays in primary care by improving the assessment of symptoms associated with cancer could have significant impacts on cancer outcomes. Symptom risk assessment tools could improve the diagnostic assessment of patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer in primary care. We aimed to explore the use of a cancer risk tool, which implements the QCancer model, in consultations and its potential impact on clinical decision making. METHODS: We implemented an exploratory 'action design' method with 15 general practitioners (GPs) from Victoria, Australia. General practitioners applied the risk tool in simulated consultations, conducted semi-structured interviews based on the normalisation process theory and explored issues relating to implementation of the tool. RESULTS: The risk tool was perceived as being potentially useful for patients with complex histories. More experienced GPs were distrustful of the risk output, especially when it conflicted with their clinical judgement. Variable interpretation of symptoms meant that there was significant variation in risk assessment. When a risk output was high, GPs were confronted with numerical risk outputs creating challenges in consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Significant barriers to implementing electronic cancer risk assessment tools in consultation could limit their uptake. These relate not only to the design and integration of the tool but also to variation in interpretation of clinical histories, and therefore variable risk outputs and strong beliefs in personal clinical intuition.
-
ItemA qualitative exploration of the use of calendar landmarking instruments in cancer symptom research(BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, 2014-10-25)BACKGROUND: Late diagnosis is considered to be a major factor contributing to poorer cancer survival rates in the UK. Interventions have focussed on the promotion of earlier diagnosis in patients with potential cancer symptoms. However, to assess the effectiveness of these interventions, the time from symptom onset to presentation needs to be reliably and accurately measured. This qualitative study explored the use of calendar landmarking instruments in cancer symptom research. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of transcripts of interviews using the calendar landmarking instrument, undertaken with patients who had either been diagnosed with cancer (n = 40, IRCO study, Western Australia), or who had symptoms suggestive of cancer (n = 38, SYMPTOM study, North East and Eastern England). We used constant comparison methods to identify use of the calendar landmarking instruments and the impact of their application. RESULTS: The calendar landmarking instrument appeared to help many patients, either by acting as a prompt or helping to refine recall of events. A combination of personal (e.g. birthday) and national (e.g. Christmas) landmarks seemed to be the most effective. Calendar landmarking instruments appeared more useful where the time period between onset of symptoms and date of first consultation was less than three months. The interviewee's age, gender and cancer type did not appear to influence whether or not the instrument facilitated recall, and there were no instances where the use of the instrument resulted in the disclosure of a new first symptom. Symptoms of similar chronic conditions could create difficulties when applying the instrument; it was difficult for these participants to characterise and disentangle their symptoms which prompted their decisions to seek help. Some participants tended to prefer to use their own, already personalised, diaries to assist in their recall of events. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to describe the potential role of calendar landmarking instruments to support research interviews which explore symptoms and events along the cancer diagnostic pathway. The major challenge remains as to whether they actually improve accuracy of recall.
-
ItemRisk prediction tools for cancer in primary care(NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP, 2015-12-22)Numerous risk tools are now available, which predict either current or future risk of a cancer diagnosis. In theory, these tools have the potential to improve patient outcomes through enhancing the consistency and quality of clinical decision-making, facilitating equitable and cost-effective distribution of finite resources such as screening tests or preventive interventions, and encouraging behaviour change. These potential uses have been recognised by the National Cancer Institute as an 'area of extraordinary opportunity' and an increasing number of risk prediction models continue to be developed. The data on predictive utility (discrimination and calibration) of these models suggest that some have potential for clinical application; however, the focus on implementation and impact is much more recent and there remains considerable uncertainty about their clinical utility and how to implement them in order to maximise benefits and minimise harms such as over-medicalisation, anxiety and false reassurance. If the potential benefits of risk prediction models are to be realised in clinical practice, further validation of the underlying risk models and research to assess the acceptability, clinical impact and economic implications of incorporating them in practice are needed.