Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28277044›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2017

How the probability of presentation to a primary care clinician correlates with cancer survival rates: a European survey using vignettes.

Michael Harris, Peter Frey, Magdalena Esteva, Svjetlana Gašparović Babić, Mercè Marzo-Castillejo, Davorina Petek, Marija Petek Ster, Hans Thulesius

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Impact of GP gatekeeping on quality of care, and health outcomes, use, and expenditure: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Michael Harrisa Department for Health, University of Bath , Bath , United Kingdom.
Peter Freyb Berner Institut für Hausarztmedizin, Universität Bern , Bern , Switzerland.
Magdalena Estevac Majorca Primary Health Care Department & Instituto de Investigación sanitaria Illes Balears (idISBA) , Palma Mallorca , Spain.
Svjetlana Gašparović Babićd Department for Health Education and Health Promotion , Teaching Institute of Public Health of Primorsko-Goranska County, University of Rijeka , Rijeka , Croatia.
Mercè Marzo-Castillejoe Unitat de Suport a la Recerca, IDIAP Jordi Gol, Direcció d'Atenció Primària Costa de Ponent , Institut Català de la Salut , Cornellà de Llobregat , 08940 , Spain.
Davorina Petekf Department of Family Medicine , Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana , Ljubljana , Slovenia.
Marija Petek Sterf Department of Family Medicine , Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana , Ljubljana , Slovenia.
Hans Thulesiusg Department of Clinical Sciences , Lund University , Lund , Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEuropean cancer survival rates vary widely. System factors, including whether or not primary care physicians (PCPs) are gatekeepers, may account for some of these differences. This study explores where patients who may have cancer are likely to present for medical care in different European countries, and how probability of presentation to a primary care clinician correlates with cancer survival rates.

designSeventy-eight PCPs in a range of European countries assessed four vignettes representing patients who might have cancer, and consensus groups agreed how likely those patients were to present to different clinicians in their own countries. These data were compared with national cancer survival rates.

settingA total of 14 countries. SUBJECTS: Consensus groups of PCPs.

main outcome measuresProbability of initial presentation to a PCP for four clinical vignettes.

resultsThere was no significant correlation between overall national 1-year relative cancer survival rates and the probability of initial presentation to a PCP (r  = -0.16, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.08). Within that there was large variation depending on the type of cancer, with a significantly poorer lung cancer survival in countries where patients were more likely to initially consult a PCP (lung r = -0.57, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.12; ovary: r = -0.13, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.38; breast r = 0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.58; bowel: r = 0.20, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.62).

conclusionsThere were wide variations in the degree of gatekeeping between countries, with no simple binary model as to whether or not a country has a "PCP-as-gatekeeper" system. While there was case-by-case variation, there was no overall evidence of a link between a higher probability of initial consultation with a PCP and poorer cancer survival. KEY POINTS European cancer survival rates vary widely, and health system factors may account for some of these differences. The data from 14 European countries show a wide variation in the probability of initial presentation to a PCP. The degree to which PCPs act as gatekeepers varies considerably from country to country. There is no overall evidence of a link between a higher probability of initial presentation to a PCP and poorer cancer survival.

Indexed as

GatekeepingPhysicians, Primary CarePractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareAttitude of Health PersonnelBreast NeoplasmsEuropeFemaleHumansIntestinal NeoplasmsLung NeoplasmsMaleNeoplasmsOvarian NeoplasmsProbabilityReferral and Consultationcancerdecision makingdiagnosisEuropeHealth care systemsprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID28277044
PMCPMC5361416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.