Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28028437›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2016

Preventing delayed diagnosis of cancer: clinicians' views on main problems and solutions.

Lorainne Tudor Car, Nikolaos Papachristou, Catherine Urch, Azeem Majeed, Mona El-Khatib, Paul Aylin, Rifat Atun, Josip Car, Charles Vincent

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Empowering patients? The role of self-referral in early cancer detection.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Exosomal biomarkers for cancer diagnosis and patient monitoring.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2020
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lorainne Tudor CarDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK.
Nikolaos PapachristouDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK.
Catherine UrchImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, ‎St Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK.
Mona El-KhatibDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK.
Paul AylinDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK.
Rifat AtunDepartment of Global Health and Population & Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard, Boston, USA.
Josip CarDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK; Health Services and Outcomes Research Programme, LKCMedicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Charles VincentDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelayed diagnosis is a major contributing factor to the UK's lower cancer survival compared to many European countries. In the UK, there is a significant national variation in early cancer diagnosis. Healthcare providers can offer an insight into local priorities for timely cancer diagnosis. In this study, we aimed to identify the main problems and solutions relating to delay cancer diagnosis according to cancer care clinicians.

methodsWe developed and implemented a new priority-setting approach called PRIORITIZE and invited North West London cancer care clinicians to identify and prioritize main causes for and solutions to delayed diagnosis of cancer care.

resultsClinicians identified a number of concrete problems and solutions relating to delayed diagnosis of cancer. Raising public awareness, patient education as well as better access to specialist care and diagnostic testing were seen as the highest priorities. The identified suggestions focused mostly on the delays during referrals from primary to secondary care.

conclusionsMany identified priorities were feasible, affordable and converged around common themes such as public awareness, care continuity and length of consultation. As a timely, proactive and scalable priority-setting approach, PRIORITZE could be implemented as a routine preventative system for determining patient safety issues by frontline staff.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeDelayed DiagnosisHumansPatient Education as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Surveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID28028437
PMCPMC5140077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.