ArticleBMJ open2015
How do general practitioners manage patients with cancer symptoms? A video-vignette study.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primary care practitioners' priorities for improving the timeliness of cancer diagnosis in primary care: a European cluster-based analysis.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- How European primary care practitioners think the timeliness of cancer diagnosis can be improved: a thematic analysis.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Treatment recommendations within the leeway of clinical guidelines: A qualitative interview study on oncologists' clinical deliberation.BMC cancer · 2017Article
- Article
- The role of the general practitioner in cancer care: a survey of the patients' perspective.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDetermine how general practitioners (GPs) manage patients with cancer symptoms.
designGPs reviewed 24 video-vignettes and case notes on patients with cancer symptoms and indicated whether they would refer the patient and/or prescribe medication, and/or undertake further investigation. According to available guidelines, all cases warranted a referral to a specialist or further investigations.
settingAustralian primary care sector.
participants102 practising GPs participated in this study, including trainees.
interventionsThe research was part of a larger randomised controlled trial testing a referral pro forma; however, this paper reports on management decisions made throughout the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: This paper reports on how the participants would manage the patients depicted in each vignette.
resultsIn more than one-in-eight cases, the patient was not investigated or referred. Patient management varied significantly by cancer type (p<0.001). For two key reasons, colorectal cancer was the chosen referent category. First, it represents a prevalent type of cancer. Second, in this study, colorectal cancer symptoms were managed in a similar proportion of options-that is, prescription, referral or investigation. Compared with vignettes featuring colorectal cancer participants were less likely to manage breast, bladder, endometrial, and lung cancers with a 'prescription only' or 'referral only' option. They were less likely to manage prostate cancer with a 'prescription only', yet more likely to manage it with a 'referral with investigation'. With regard to pancreatic and cervical cancers, participants were more likely to manage these with a 'referral only' or a 'referral with investigation'.
conclusionsSome patients may receive a delayed cancer diagnosis, even when they present with typical cancer symptoms to a GP who can access relevant diagnostic tests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12611000760976.
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.