ArticlePloS one2017
Do patients' faces influence General Practitioners' cancer suspicions? A test of automatic processing of sociodemographic information.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors affecting the decision to investigate older adults with potential cancer symptoms: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Pooled it
- Understanding GPs' referral decisions for younger patients with symptoms of cancer: a qualitative interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- Referral challenges for early-onset colorectal cancer: a qualitative study in UK primary care.BJGP open · 2023Article
- Incidence trends for twelve cancers in younger adults-a rapid review.British journal of cancer · 2022Review
- Factors associated with waiting time to breast cancer diagnosis among symptomatic breast cancer patients: a population-based study from Ontario, Canada.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
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
backgroundDelayed cancer diagnosis leads to poorer patient outcomes. During short consultations, General Practitioners (GPs) make quick decisions about likelihood of cancer. Patients' facial cues are processed rapidly and may influence diagnosis.
aimTo investigate whether patients' facial characteristics influence immediate perception of cancer risk by GPs. DESIGN AND
settingWeb-based binary forced choice experiment with GPs from Northeast Scotland.
methodGPs were presented with a series of pairs of face prototypes and asked to quickly select the patient more likely to have cancer. Faces were modified with respect to age, gender, and ethnicity. Choices were analysed using Chi-squared goodness-of-fit statistics with Bonferroni corrections.
resultsEighty-two GPs participated. GPs were significantly more likely to suspect cancer in older patients. Gender influenced GP cancer suspicion, but this was modified by age: the male face was chosen as more likely to have cancer than the female face for young (72% of GPs;95% CI 61.0-87.0) and middle-aged faces (65.9%; 95% CI 54.7-75.5); but 63.4% (95% CI 52.2-73.3) decided the older female was more likely to have cancer than the older male (p = 0.015). GPs were significantly more likely to suspect cancer in the young Caucasian male (65.9% (95% CI 54.7, 75.5)) compared to the young Asian male (p = 0.004).
conclusionGPs' first impressions about cancer risk are influenced by patient age, gender, and ethnicity. Tackling GP cognitive biases could be a promising way of reducing cancer diagnostic delays, particularly for younger patients.
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.