104
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    16
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Andersen Model of Total Patient Delay: a systematic review of its application in cancer diagnosis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Objective

          Patient pathways to presentation to health care professionals and initial management in primary care are key determinants of outcomes in cancer. Reducing diagnostic delays may result in improved prognosis and increase the proportion of early stage cancers identified. Investigating diagnostic delay could be facilitated by use of a robust theoretical framework. We systematically reviewed the literature reporting the application of Andersen's Model of Total Patient Delay (delay stages: appraisal, illness, behavioural, scheduling, treatment) in studies which assess cancer diagnosis.

          Methods

          We searched four electronic databases and conducted a narrative synthesis. Inclusion criteria were studies which: reported primary research, focused on cancer diagnosis and explicitly applied one or more stages of the Andersen Model in the collection or analysis of data.

          Results

          The vast majority of studies of diagnostic delay in cancer have not applied a theoretical model to inform data collection or reporting. Ten papers (reporting eight studies) met our inclusion criteria: three studied several cancers. The studies were heterogeneous in their methods and quality. The review confirmed that there are clearly identifiable stages between the recognition of a symptom, first presentation to a health care professional, subsequent diagnosis and initiation of treatment. There was strong evidence to support the existence and importance of appraisal and treatment delay as defined in the Andersen Model, although treatment delay requires expansion. There was some evidence to support scheduling delay which may be contributed to by both patient and the health service. Illness delay was often difficult to distinguish from appraisal delay. It was less clear whether behavioural delay exists as a separate significant stage.

          Conclusions

          Greater consistency is required in the conduct and reporting of studies of diagnostic delay in cancer. We propose refinements to the Andersen Model which could be used to increase its validity and improve the consistency of reporting in future studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • 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

            Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods.

            The limitations of traditional forms of systematic review in making optimal use of all forms of evidence are increasingly evident, especially for policy-makers and practitioners. There is an urgent need for robust ways of incorporating qualitative evidence into systematic reviews. In this paper we provide a brief overview and critique of a selection of strategies for synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence, ranging from techniques that are largely qualitative and interpretive through to techniques that are largely quantitative and integrative. A range of methods is available for synthesising diverse forms of evidence. These include narrative summary, thematic analysis, grounded theory, meta-ethnography, meta-study, realist synthesis, Miles and Huberman's data analysis techniques, content analysis, case survey, qualitative comparative analysis and Bayesian meta-analysis. Methods vary in their strengths and weaknesses, ability to deal with qualitative and quantitative forms of evidence, and type of question for which they are most suitable. We identify a number of procedural, conceptual and theoretical issues that need to be addressed in moving forward with this area, and emphasise the need for existing techniques to be evaluated and modified, rather than inventing new approaches.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Delay in seeking a cancer diagnosis: delay stages and psychophysiological comparison processes.

              Two analyses of patient delay in seeking a medical diagnosis are considered. In the first, a model of delay is presented. Specifically, delay is comprised of four stages (appraisal, illness, behavioural and scheduling delay intervals), each governed by a conceptually distinct set of decisional and appraisal processes beginning with the initial day that an unexplained symptom is detected to the day the individual appears before a physician. The second analysis is a social psychological one of the attributions individuals draw when relating their symptoms to their expectations and knowledge about physiological bodily processes. The eight principles of Psychophysiological Comparison Theory (PCT) provide the basis for clarifying the psychological processes of symptom interpretation and appraisal. Two studies were conducted with women seeking diagnostic evaluations for prevalent cancers: breast or gynaecological tumours. Regarding the delay model, results indicated that the delay intervals were independent (i.e. uncorrelated). Also, appraisal delay constituted the majority (at least 60 per cent) of the total delay. In the test of PCT, support was found across measures of symptoms, the context in which the symptoms arose, and the inferences people made about the symptoms.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Health Serv Res Policy
                J Health Serv Res Policy
                JHSRP
                rsmjhsrp
                Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
                Royal Society of Medicine Press
                1355-8196
                1758-1060
                April 2012
                1 April 2012
                : 17
                : 2
                : 110-118
                Affiliations
                [1 ]General Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK
                [2 ]General Practice, School of Primary, Aboriginal and Rural Health Care, University of Western Australia , Perth, Australia
                [3 ]Department of Oral Health Services Research and Dental Public Health, King's College London , London, UK
                Author notes

                Fiona M Walter MD, Clinical Lecturer in General Practice, General Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK; Andrew Webster BMedSci, Medical Student, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia; Suzanne Scott PhD, Lecturer in Health Psychology, Department of Oral Health Services, Research & Dental Public Health, King's College London, UK; Jon Emery DPhil, Winthrop Professor of General Practice, School of Primary, Aboriginal and Rural Health Care, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

                Article
                JHSRP-10-113
                10.1258/jhsrp.2011.010113
                3336942
                22008712
                1d1fbcc1-a4fc-4f17-9acf-72898a018eb0
                © The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Review

                Social policy & Welfare
                Social policy & Welfare

                Comments

                Comment on this article