Dataset Information

Does the Primary Care Experience Influence the Cancer Diagnostic Process?

ABSTRACT: Objective. To analyze the impact of patients' experience of care at their usual source of primary care on their choice of point of entry into cancer investigation process, time to diagnosis, and presence of metastatic cancer at time of diagnosis. Method. A questionnaire was administered to 438 patients with cancer (breast, lung, and colorectal) between 2011 and 2013 in four oncology clinics of Quebec (Canada). Multiple regression analyses (logistic and Cox models) were conducted. Results. Among patients with symptoms leading to investigation of cancer (n = 307), 47% used their usual source of primary care as the point of entry for investigation. Greater comprehensiveness of care was associated with the decision to use this source as point of entry (OR = 1.25; CI 90% = 1.06-1.46), as well as with shorter times between first symptoms and investigation (HR = 1.11; p = 0.05), while greater accessibility was associated with shorter times between investigation and diagnosis (HR = 1.13; p < 0.01). Conclusion. Experience of care at the usual source of primary care has a slight influence on the choice of point of entry for cancer investigation and on time to diagnosis. This influence appears to be more related to patients' perceptions of the accessibility and comprehensiveness of their usual source of primary care.

SUBMITTER: Provost S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4609476 | biostudies-other | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does the Primary Care Experience Influence the Cancer Diagnostic Process?

Provost Sylvie S Pineault Raynald R Tousignant Pierre P Roberge Danièle D Tremblay Dominique D Breton Mylaine M Benhadj Lynda L Diop Mamadou M Fournier Michel M Brousselle Astrid A

International journal of family medicine 20151004

Objective. To analyze the impact of patients' experience of care at their usual source of primary care on their choice of point of entry into cancer investigation process, time to diagnosis, and presence of metastatic cancer at time of diagnosis. Method. A questionnaire was administered to 438 patients with cancer (breast, lung, and colorectal) between 2011 and 2013 in four oncology clinics of Quebec (Canada). Multiple regression analyses (logistic and Cox models) were conducted. Results. Among ...[more]

PMID: 26504599

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiagnostic uncertainty is a pervasive issue in primary care where patients often present with non-specific symptoms early in the disease process. Knowledge about how clinicians communicate diagnostic uncertainty to patients is crucial to prevent associated diagnostic errors. Yet, in-depth research on the interpersonal communication of diagnostic uncertainty has been limited. We conducted an integrative systematic literature review (PROSPERO CRD42020197624, unfunded) to investigate how primary care doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty in interactions with patients and how patients experience their care in the face of uncertainty.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts (LLBA) from inception to December 2021 for MeSH and keywords related to 'communication', 'diagnosis', 'uncertainty' and 'primary care' environments and stakeholders (patients and doctors), and conducted additional handsearching. We included empirical primary care studies published in English on spoken communication of diagnostic uncertainty by doctors to patients. We assessed risk of bias with the QATSDD quality assessment tool and conducted thematic and content analysis to synthesise the results.ResultsInclusion criteria were met for 19 out of 1281 studies. Doctors used two main communication strategies to manage diagnostic uncertainty: (1) patient-centred communication strategies (e.g. use of empathy), and (2) diagnostic reasoning strategies (e.g. excluding serious diagnoses). Linguistically, diagnostic uncertainty was either disclosed explicitly or implicitly through diverse lexical and syntactical constructions, or not communicated (omission). Patients' experiences of care in response to the diverse communicative and linguistic strategies were mixed. Patient-centred approaches were generally regarded positively by patients.DiscussionDespite a small number of included studies, this is the first review to systematically catalogue the diverse communication and linguistic strategies to express diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. Health professionals should be aware of the diverse strategies used to express diagnostic uncertainty in practice and the value of combining patient-centred approaches with diagnostic reasoning strategies.

Project description:BackgroundThe early detection and diagnosis of cancer to reduce avoidable mortality and morbidity is a challenging task in primary health care. There is a growing evidence base on how to enable earlier cancer diagnosis, but well-recognised gaps and delays exist around the translation of new research findings into routine clinical practice. Implementation research aims to accelerate the uptake of evidence by health care systems and professionals. We aimed to identify priorities for implementation research in early cancer diagnosis in primary care.MethodsWe used a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi consensus process to identify and rank research priorities. We asked primary care physicians, patients and researchers to complete an online survey suggesting priorities for implementation research in cancer detection and diagnosis. We summarised and presented these suggestions to an 11-member consensus panel comprising nine primary care physicians and two patients. Panellists independently rated the importance of suggestions on a 1-9 scale (9 = very high priority; 1 = very low priority) before and after a structured group discussion. We ranked suggestions using median ratings.ResultsWe received a total of 115 suggested priorities for implementation research from 32 survey respondents (including 16 primary care professionals, 11 researchers, and 4 patient and public representatives; 88% of respondents were UK-based). After removing duplicates and ineligible suggestions, we presented 37 suggestions grouped within 17 categories to the consensus panel. Following two rounds of rating, 27 suggestions were highly supported (median rating 7-9). The most highly rated suggestions concerned diagnostic support (e.g., access to imaging) interventions (e.g., professional or patient education), organisation of the delivery of care (e.g., communication within and between teams) and understanding variations in care and outcomes.ConclusionsWe have identified a set of priorities for implementation research on the early diagnosis of cancer, ranked in importance by primary care physicians and patients. We suggest that researchers and research funders consider these in directing further efforts and resources to improve population outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo understand disparities in primary care patient experience.DesignA serial cross-sectional study was conducted to understand disparities in patient experience at 2 time points (2014 and 2016). Disparities related to age, gender, neighbourhood income, and self-rated health were explored using 3 analytic approaches: stratification, logistic regression, and relative comparison across multiple demographic variables.SettingA multisite family health team in Toronto, Ont.ParticipantsPatients in the family medicine practice who completed e-mail surveys in 2014 (n = 1171, 19% response rate) and 2016 (n = 1823, 15% response rate).Main outcome measuresPatient-reported access (timely access when sick, access after hours) and patient-centredness (opportunity to ask questions, involvement in care decisions, enough time with provider).ResultsPerformance for all measures improved between 2014 and 2016, with the greatest absolute improvement seen in access after hours (61% in 2014; 75% in 2016). Patients residing in low-income neighbourhoods reported worse patient experiences than those in high-income neighbourhoods did, as did patients with poor versus excellent self-rated health, even after adjustment for other variables. For example, in 2016, 60% of patients residing in low-income neighbourhoods reported timely access when sick versus 70% in high-income neighbourhoods (adjusted odds ratio of 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95); 60% of patients with poor or fair self-rated health reported timely access when sick versus 72% with excellent self-rated health (adjusted odds ratio of 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.84). Comparing across demographic groups, patients with excellent self-rated health and poor or fair self-rated health reported the best and worst experiences, respectively, for all measures. In 2016, the average disparity between subgroups was largest for access after hours.ConclusionIn this setting, patient experience was worse for patients in lower-income neighbourhoods and those with poor or fair self-rated health. Access after hours demonstrated the greatest overall absolute improvement but also the greatest widening of disparities.

Dataset Information

Does the Primary Care Experience Influence the Cancer Diagnostic Process?

Publications

Does the Primary Care Experience Influence the Cancer Diagnostic Process?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets