36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Systematic review of factors influencing patient and practitioner delay in diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal cancer

      other

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          As knowledge on the causation of cancers advances and new treatments are developed, early recognition and accurate diagnosis becomes increasingly important. This review focused on identifying factors influencing patient and primary care practitioner delay for upper gastrointestinal cancer. A systematic methodology was applied, including extensive searches of the literature published from 1970 to 2003, systematic data extraction, quality assessment and narrative data synthesis. Included studies were those evaluating factors associated with the time interval between a patient first noticing a cancer symptom and presenting to primary care, between a patient first presenting to primary care and being referred to secondary care, or describing an intervention designed to reduce those intervals. Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Studies reporting delay intervals demonstrated that the patient phase of delay was greater than the practitioner phase, whilst patient-related research suggests that recognition of symptom seriousness is more important than recognition of the presence of the symptom. The main factors related to practitioner delay were misdiagnosis, application and interpretation of tests, and the confounding effect of existing disease. Greater understanding of patient factors is required, along with evaluation of interventions to ensure appropriate diagnosis, examination and investigation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Influence of delay on survival in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review.

          Most patients with breast cancer are detected after symptoms occur rather than through screening. The impact on survival of delays between the onset of symptoms and the start of treatment is controversial and cannot be studied in randomised controlled trials. We did a systematic review of observational studies (worldwide) of duration of symptoms and survival. We identified 87 studies (101,954 patients) with direct data linking delay (including delay by patients) and survival. We classified studies for analysis by type of data in the original reports: category I studies had actual 5-year survival data (38 studies, 53,912 patients); category II used actuarial or multivariate analyses (21 studies, 25,102 patients); and category III was all other types of data (28 studies, 22,940 patients). We tested the main hypothesis that longer delays would be associated with lower survival, and a secondary hypothesis that longer delays were associated with more advanced stage, which would account for lower survival. In category I studies, patients with delays of 3 months or more had 12% lower 5-year survival than those with shorter delays (odds ratio for death 1.47 [95% CI 1.42-1.53]) and those with delays of 3-6 months had 7% lower survival than those with shorter delays (1.24 [1.17-1.30]). In category II, 13 of 14 studies with unrestricted samples showed a significant adverse relation between longer delays and survival, whereas four of five studies of only patients with operable disease showed no significant relation. In category III, all three studies with unrestricted samples supported the primary hypothesis. The 13 informative studies showed that longer delays were associated with more advanced stage. In studies that controlled for stage, longer delay was not associated with shorter survival when the effect of stage on survival was taken into account. Delays of 3-6 months are associated with lower survival. These effects cannot be accounted for by lead-time bias. Efforts should be made to keep delays by patients and providers to a minimum.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Factors predicting delayed presentation of symptomatic breast cancer: a systematic review.

            Delayed presentation of symptomatic breast cancer is associated with lower survival. Understanding of the factors that influence delay is important for the development of strategies to shorten delays. We did a systematic review to assess the quality and strength of evidence on risk factors for delays by patients and providers. We generated hypotheses about the relation between each putative risk factor and delay, against which we tested studies. We did searches to identify papers containing original data related to risk factors for delays by patients (n=86) and providers (n=28). We critically appraised the papers for inclusion in the review according to predefined criteria. The small number of studies of adequate quality did not allow formal meta-analysis. We therefore assigned strength of evidence according to a combination of the number and size of studies supporting, not supporting, or refuting the hypotheses. Most studies were deemed to be of poor quality and were excluded. Among 23 studies of adequate quality, however, there was strong evidence for an association between older age and delay by patients, and strong evidence that marital status was unrelated to delays by patients. Younger age and presentation with a breast symptom other than a lump were strong risk factors for delays by providers. Moderate evidence was shown for several other factors. The strength of the current evidence is inadequate to inform the development of specific strategies to shorten delays by patients or providers. Clarification of the findings of this review through a major programme of primary research is urgently required.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine: systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980-97.

              To appraise findings from studies examining the impact of computers on primary care consultations. Systematic review of world literature from 1980 to 1997. 5475 references were identified from electronic databases (Medline, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Index of Scientific and Technical Proceedings, Embase, OCLC FirstSearch Proceedings), bibliographies, books, identified articles, and by authors active in the field. 1892 eligible abstracts were independently rated, and 89 studies met the inclusion criteria. Effect on doctors' performance and patient outcomes; attitudes towards computerisation. 61 studies examined effects of computers on practitioners' performance, 17 evaluated their impact on patient outcome, and 20 studied practitioners' or patients' attitudes. Computer use during consultations lengthened the consultation. Reminder systems for preventive tasks and disease management improved process rates, although some returned to pre-intervention levels when reminders were stopped. Use of computers for issuing prescriptions increased prescribing of generic drugs, and use of computers for test ordering led to cost savings and fewer unnecessary tests. There were no negative effects on those patient outcomes evaluated. Doctors and patients were generally positive about use of computers, but issues of concern included their impact on privacy, the doctor-patient relationship, cost, time, and training needs. Primary care computing systems can improve practitioner performance, particularly for health promotion interventions. This may be at the expense of patient initiated activities, making many practitioners suspicious of the negative impact on relationships with patients. There remains a dearth of evidence evaluating effects on patient outcomes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Br J Cancer
                British Journal of Cancer
                0007-0920
                1532-1827
                02 May 2006
                08 May 2006
                : 94
                : 9
                : 1272-1280
                Affiliations
                [1 ]General Practice and Primary Care, Division of Community Based Sciences, University of Glasgow, 1 Horselethill Road, Glasgow G12 9LX, UK
                [2 ]General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Health Centre, Westburn Road, Aberdeen AB25 2AY, UK
                [3 ]Community Health Sciences (General Practice), University of Edinburgh, 20 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9DX, UK
                [4 ]School of Health and Social Care, Glasgow Caledonian University, City Campus, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Author for correspondence: liz.mitchell@ 123456gcal.ac.uk
                Article
                6603089
                10.1038/sj.bjc.6603089
                2361411
                16622459
                060865b1-4ef4-4640-b1c0-c1bd7a58daa2
                Copyright 2006, Cancer Research UK
                History
                : 01 November 2005
                : 08 March 2006
                : 13 March 2006
                Categories
                Clinical Studies

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                delay,diagnosis,upper gastrointestinal,systematic review
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                delay, diagnosis, upper gastrointestinal, systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article