Literature DB >> 21828375

Comparing diagnostic delay in cancer: a cross-sectional study in three European countries with primary care-led health care systems.

Peter Murchie1, Neil C Campbell, Elizabeth K Delaney, Geert-Jan Dinant, Philip C Hannaford, Lennart Johansson, Amanda J Lee, Piotr Rollano, Mark Spigt.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The principal aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of a large-scale comparative study, between the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden, to investigate whether delays in the diagnostic pathway of cancer might explain differences in cancer survival between countries.
METHODS: Following a planning meeting to agree the format of a data collection instrument, data on delays in the cancer diagnostic pathway were abstracted from primary care-held medical records. Data were collected on 50 cases each (total of 150) from practices in each of Grampian, Northeast Scotland; Maastricht, the Netherlands and Skane, Sweden. Data were entered into SPSS 18.0 for analysis.
RESULTS: Data on delays in the cancer diagnostic pathway were readily available from primary care-held case records. However, data on demographic variables, cancer stage at diagnosis and treatment were less well recorded. There was no significant difference between countries in the way in which cases were referred from primary to secondary care. There was no significant difference between countries in the time delay between a patient presenting in primary care and being referred to secondary care. Median delay between referral and first appointment in secondary care [19 (8.0-47.5) days] was significantly longer in Scotland that in Sweden [1.0 (0-31.5) days] and the Netherlands [5.5 (0-31.5) days] (P < 0.001). Secondary care delay (between first appointment in secondary care and diagnosis) in Scotland [22.5 (0-39.5) days] was also significantly longer than in Sweden [14.0 (4.5-31.5) days] and the Netherlands [3.5 (0-16.5) days] (P = 0.003). Finally, overall delay in Scotland [53.5 (30.3-96.3) days] was also significantly longer than in Sweden [32.0 (14.0-71.0) days] and the Netherlands [22.0 (7.0-60.3) days] (P = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: A large-scale study comparing cancer delays in European countries and based on primary care-held records is feasible but would require supplementary sources of data in order to maximize information on demographic variables, the cancer stage at diagnosis and treatment details. Such a large-scale study is timely and desirable since our findings suggest systematic differences in the way cancer is managed in the three countries.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21828375     DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmr044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Pract        ISSN: 0263-2136            Impact factor:   2.267


  9 in total

1.  My personal diagnostic delay: 'Physician, prevent thyself'.

Authors:  Blair H Smith
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Multilevel Approaches to Reducing Diagnostic and Treatment Delay in Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 5.166

3.  Health-care delay in malignant melanoma: various pathways to diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Senada Hajdarevic; Asa Hörnsten; Elisabet Sundbom; Ulf Isaksson; Marcus Schmitt-Egenolf
Journal:  Dermatol Res Pract       Date:  2014-01-05

4.  Comparison of cancer diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of NICE guidelines: analysis of data from the UK General Practice Research Database.

Authors:  R D Neal; N U Din; W Hamilton; O C Ukoumunne; B Carter; S Stapley; G Rubin
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-12-24       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  Cancer suspicion in general practice, urgent referral and time to diagnosis: a population-based GP survey and registry study.

Authors:  Henry Jensen; Marie Louise Tørring; Frede Olesen; Jens Overgaard; Peter Vedsted
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-08-30       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  An investigation of routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 international jurisdictions, as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: survey development and implementation.

Authors:  David Weller; Peter Vedsted; Chantelle Anandan; Alina Zalounina; Evangelia Ourania Fourkala; Rakshit Desai; William Liston; Henry Jensen; Andriana Barisic; Anna Gavin; Eva Grunfeld; Mats Lambe; Rebecca-Jane Law; Martin Malmberg; Richard D Neal; Jatinderpal Kalsi; Donna Turner; Victoria White; Martine Bomb; Usha Menon
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Identifying important health system factors that influence primary care practitioners' referrals for cancer suspicion: a European cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Michael Harris; Peter Vedsted; Magdalena Esteva; Peter Murchie; Isabelle Aubin-Auger; Joseph Azuri; Mette Brekke; Krzysztof Buczkowski; Nicola Buono; Emiliana Costiug; Geert-Jan Dinant; Gergana Foreva; Svjetlana Gašparović Babić; Robert Hoffman; Eva Jakob; Tuomas H Koskela; Mercè Marzo-Castillejo; Ana Luísa Neves; Davorina Petek; Marija Petek Ster; Jolanta Sawicka-Powierza; Antonius Schneider; Emmanouil Smyrnakis; Sven Streit; Hans Thulesius; Birgitta Weltermann; Gordon Taylor
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Differences in cutaneous melanoma treatment and patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Jakob D Wikstrom; Lena Lundeberg; Margareta Frohm-Nilsson; Ada Girnita
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Diagnostic routes and time intervals for patients with colorectal cancer in 10 international jurisdictions; findings from a cross-sectional study from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

Authors:  Usha Menon; Peter Vedsted; David Weller; Alina Zalounina Falborg; Henry Jensen; Andriana Barisic; Anne Kari Knudsen; Rebecca J Bergin; David H Brewster; Victoria Cairnduff; Anna T Gavin; Eva Grunfeld; Elizabeth Harland; Mats Lambe; Rebecca-Jane Law; Yulan Lin; Martin Malmberg; Donna Turner; Richard D Neal; Victoria White; Samantha Harrison; Irene Reguilon
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 2.692

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.