ArticleBMJ open2014
Managing risk in cancer presentation, detection and referral: a qualitative study of primary care staff views.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- GP referral to rapid diagnostic centres for non-specific cancer symptoms: a qualitative study.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Primary care practitioners' priorities for improving the timeliness of cancer diagnosis in primary care: a European cluster-based analysis.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- GPs' use of gut feelings when assessing cancer risk: a qualitative study in UK primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
- Quality improvements of safety-netting guidelines for cancer in UK primary care: insights from a qualitative interview study of GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- How European primary care practitioners think the timeliness of cancer diagnosis can be improved: a thematic analysis.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Article
- Preventing delayed diagnosis of cancer: clinicians' views on main problems and solutions.Journal of global health · 2016Article
- Clinician-identified problems and solutions for delayed diagnosis in primary care: a PRIORITIZE study.BMC family practice · 2016Article
- International variation in adherence to referral guidelines for suspected cancer: a secondary analysis of survey data.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016Article
- Could it be colorectal cancer? General practitioners' use of the faecal occult blood test and decision making--a qualitative study.BMC family practice · 2015Article
- Cancer detection in primary care: insights from general practitioners.British journal of cancer · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn the UK, there have been a number of national initiatives to promote earlier detection and prompt referral of patients presenting to primary care with signs and symptoms of cancer. The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of a range of primary care staff in promoting earlier presentation, detection and referral of patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer.
settingSix primary care practices in northwest England.
participants39 primary care staff from a variety of disciplines took part in five group and four individual interviews.
resultsThe global theme to emerge from the interviews was 'managing risk', which had three underpinning organising themes: 'complexity', relating to uncertainty of cancer diagnoses, service fragmentation and plethora of guidelines; 'continuity', relating to relationships between practice staff and their patients and between primary and secondary care; 'conflict' relating to policy drivers and staff role boundaries. A key concern of staff was that policymakers and those implementing cancer initiatives did not fully understand how risk was managed within primary care.
conclusionsPrimary care staff expressed a range of views and opinions on the benefits of cancer initiatives. National initiatives did not appear to wholly resolve issues in managing risk for all practitioners. Staff were concerned about the number of guidelines and priorities they were expected to implement. These issues need to be considered by policymakers when developing and implementing new initiatives.
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.