British Journal of General Practice最新文献

Background: England is short of GPs, and GP consultation rates, consultation duration, and workload are increasing. Electronic clinical decision support tools assist decision making for screening, diagnosis, and risk management. Cancer detection is one area in which tools are designed to support GPs, with some electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) estimating the risk of current cancer based on symptoms.

Aim: To explore any association between the impact of eRATs and GP workload and workflow during consultations.

Design and setting: Observational sub-study.

Method: Thirteen practices in England participating in a cluster randomised controlled trial of eRATs were recruited to the study. Using mixed-effects regression models, the average duration of consulting sessions and individual consultations in which eRATs were, or were not, activated were compared.

Results: There was no evidence that consulting sessions in which an eRAT was activated were, on average, longer than sessions in which an eRAT had not been activated. However, after adjusting for a range of session and consultation characteristics, individual consultations involving an eRAT were longer, on average, by 3.96 minutes (95% confidence interval = 3.45 to 4.47; P<0.001) when compared with consultations with no eRAT.

Conclusion: There was no evidence to suggest that eRATs should not be used to support GPs in early cancer diagnosis from a workload perspective. Activation of eRATs was not associated with increased workload across a consulting session, despite a small increase in time observed in individual consultations involving eRATs. Ultimately, therefore, it should be definitive findings regarding the clinical effectiveness of eRATs, not the related workload/workflow implications, that determine whether the use of eRATs should be rolled out more widely.

Background: UK Asian and Black patients experience longer cancer diagnostic intervals - the period between initial symptomatic presentation in primary care and cancer diagnosis.

Aim: To determine whether the differences in diagnostic intervals are because of prolonged primary care, referral, or secondary care interval.

Design and setting: A cohort study was undertaken of 70 971 patients with seven cancers (breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, oesophagogastric, myeloma, ovarian) diagnosed after symptom presentation in English primary care.

Method: Data on symptom presentation and diagnosis were extracted from cancer registry-linked primary care and secondary care data. Primary interval was defined as the period between first primary care presentation and secondary care referral, referral interval as the period between referral and first secondary care appointment, and secondary care interval as the period between the first secondary care appointment and diagnosis. Accelerated failure time models were used to investigate ethnic differences across all four intervals.

Results: Across all sites, the median diagnostic interval was 46 days, ranging from 13 days for breast cancer to 116 days for lung cancer. It was 14% longer for Black patients (adjusted time ratio [ATR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 1.25) and 13% longer for Asian patients (ATR 1.13, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.23) compared with White patients. Site-specific analyses showed that, for myeloma, lung, prostate, and colorectal cancer, the secondary care interval was longer in Asian and Black patients, who also had a longer primary care interval in breast and colorectal cancer. There was little evidence of ethnic differences in referral interval.

Conclusion: This study found evidence of ethnic differences in diagnostic intervals, with prolonged secondary care intervals for four common cancers and prolonged primary care intervals for two. Although these differences are relatively modest, they are unjustified and may indicate shortcomings in healthcare delivery that disproportionately affect ethnic minorities.

Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is used in primary care for prostate cancer detection, either for symptomatic assessment or asymptomatic testing following an informed decision.

Aim: To estimate the proportion of patients with prostate cancer who were diagnosed following asymptomatic PSA testing, and the patient and practice factors influencing this route.

Design and setting: The 2018 English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (NCDA) data were analysed, with linkage to the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, practice-level Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), and GP Patient Survey (GPPS) data. All 2018 NCDA patients with a diagnosis of prostate cancer were included (n = 9837).

Method: Patients with recorded biomarker testing and no recorded symptoms before diagnosis were classified as having asymptomatic PSA-detected prostate cancer. Patient (age, ethnicity, deprivation, and comorbidities) and practice (geographical location, area deprivation, list size, urgent suspected cancer referral rate, QOF outcomes, and GPPS results) factors were analysed for association with asymptomatic PSA testing using mixed-effects logistic regression models.

Results: In total, 1884 out of 9837 (19.2%) patients with prostate cancer were detected following asymptomatic PSA testing, 982 (52.1%) of whom were aged 50-69 years. Younger age, non-White ethnicity, lower deprivation, and lower comorbidity count were associated with an increased likelihood of diagnosis following asymptomatic PSA testing. There was a 13-fold variation between practices in the odds of detecting prostate cancer through asymptomatic PSA testing, without clear explanatory practice-level factors.

Conclusion: One in five patients with prostate cancer in England are diagnosed after asymptomatic PSA testing in primary care, with large variation in asymptomatic PSA detection between practices.

Background: The estimated incidence of a cancer diagnosis during or shortly after pregnancy is 1 in 1000 pregnancies in England. Pregnancy can have an impact on symptom appraisal and help-seeking for symptoms subsequently diagnosed as cancer. Little is known about the pathway to cancer diagnosis in pregnancy or delays that women can encounter.

Aim: To explore symptom appraisal, help-seeking decisions, and experience of receiving a cancer diagnosis during pregnancy.

Design and setting: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with women diagnosed with cancer during or shortly after pregnancy in the previous 4 years in the UK, recruited between January and May 2022 via the charity Mummy's Star.

Method: This study used reflexive thematic analysis of 20 interviews. Analysis was largely inductive and the themes generated were mapped onto the intervals of the Model of Pathways to Treatment.

Results: Symptoms were often interpreted through the lens of pregnancy by both participants and most of the healthcare professionals from whom they sought help. Participants who found breast lumps were likely to suspect cancer and be referred promptly for tests in secondary care. Although most participants sought timely help for their symptoms, some subsequently encountered health system delays, partly owing to both the vague nature of their symptoms and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusion: Health services need to better support women presenting with possible cancer symptoms during pregnancy to ensure timely diagnosis. Recommendations include prioritising symptoms over attributing them solely to pregnancy, ensuring timely referrals to rule out serious conditions, and emphasising clear communication alongside robust safety-netting practices. A full assessment is essential before dismissing symptoms as pregnancy related.

Background: Physical activity (PA) benefits cancer survivors' health, yet no PA programmes are incorporated in Dutch general practice.

Aim: To evaluate cancer survivors' outcomes following a PA programme in general practice.

Design and setting: A single-arm PA intervention implementation study among cancer survivors in 15 Dutch general practices.

Method: Patients aged ≥18 years who completed primary cancer treatment ≥6 months prior were eligible. The 9-month intervention comprised counselling sessions with a primary care practitioner (PCP) aimed at increasing daily PA. Reach, Effectiveness, and Implementation of the RE-AIM framework were evaluated among participants. Primary health outcomes included self-reported symptoms of fatigue, depression, and anxiety; secondary outcomes included step count, caloric expenditure, weight, physical function, self-reported quality of life, and PA. Outcomes were assessed at time (T)₀-T₃ (0, 3, 6, and 9 months) or at PCPs' sessions S1-S6 (0, 3, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 9 months). Non-participants completed a single baseline questionnaire. The study used (non-)parametric independent tests and linear mixed models for analyses.

Results: Of 564 invited patients, 149 (26%) participated. Participants had less formal education, higher unemployment, less PA, and more fatigue and psychological symptoms than non-participants. All primary and most secondary health outcomes improved over time, with clinically relevant changes in step count and physical function. In total, 11% (n = 16/149) dropped out before and 26% (n = 35/133) during the programme. Counselling session adherence and PA goal achievement were 98% (n = 647/661) and 73% (n = 81/111), respectively.

Conclusion: The programme reached long-term cancer survivors with poorer health status, and showed positive health changes particularly on PA and physical function. Such PA programmes may benefit the health of a rising number of cancer survivors visiting primary care.