ArticleBMC family practice2013
Patients' experiences of referral for colorectal cancer.
Article in BMC family practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Decision Support Systems for Healthcare Referral Strategies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review of geographical differences in management and outcomes for colorectal cancer in Australia.BMC cancer · 2017Pooled it
- Patients' perspectives on the medical primary-secondary care interface: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research.BMJ open · 2015Pooled it
- Impact of referral templates on patient experience of the referral and care process: a cluster randomised trial.BMJ open · 2016Trial
- Improving colorectal cancer in Alberta, Canada: a qualitative study of patients and close contacts' perceptions on diagnosis following an emergency department presentation.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- The patient perspective on the preoperative colorectal cancer care pathway and preparedness for surgery and postoperative recovery-a qualitative interview study.Journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Patient-reported diagnostic intervals to colorectal cancer diagnosis in the Midland region of New Zealand: a prospective cohort study.Family practice · 2022Article
- Clinical practice guideline adherence in oncology: A qualitative study of insights from clinicians in Australia.PloS one · 2022Article
- How do colorectal cancer patients rate their GP: a mixed methods study.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Barriers and facilitators to colorectal cancer diagnosis in New Zealand: a qualitative study.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Perceptions of shared care among survivors of colorectal cancer from non-English-speaking and English-speaking backgrounds: a qualitative study.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
- Decision making and referral from primary care for possible lung and colorectal cancer: a qualitative study of patients' experiences.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Article
- Characteristics of Optimal Cancer Referrals Made by Primary Care Clinicians: Scoping Review.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOutcomes for colorectal cancer patients vary significantly. Compared to other countries, Australia has a good record with patient outcomes, yet there is little information available on the referral pathway. This paper explores the views of Australian patients and their experiences of referral for colorectal cancer treatment following diagnosis; the aim was to improve our understanding of the referral pathway and guide the development of future interventions.
methodsA purposive sampling strategy was used, recruiting 29 patients representing urban and rural areas from 3 Australian states who participated in 4 focus groups. Seven patients provided individual interviews to supplement the data. Recordings were transcribed verbatim, data was coded with NVivo software and analysed thematically before deductive analysis.
resultsFour aspects of the referral process were identified by patients, namely detection/diagnosis, referral for initial treatment/specialist care, the roles of the GP/specialist, and the patient's perceived involvement in the process. The referral process was characterised by a lack of patient involvement, with few examples of shared decision-making and few examples of limited choice. However, patients did not always feel they had the knowledge to make informed decisions. Information exchange was highly valued by patients when it occurred, and it increased their satisfaction with the process. Other factors mediating care included the use of the public versus private health system, the quality of information exchange (GP to specialist and GP to patient), continuity of care between GP and specialist, and the extent of information provision when patients moved between specialist and GP care.
conclusionsPatients described poor GP continuity, ad hoc organisational systems and limited information exchange, at both interpersonal and inter-organisational levels, all leading to sub-optimal care. Implementation of a system of information feedback to GPs and engagement with them might improve information exchange for patients, enabling them to be more involved in improved referral outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.