ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2019
Exploring public attitudes towards the new Faster Diagnosis Standard for cancer: a focus group study with the UK public.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2019. 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.
- Preferences for multi-cancer tests (MCTs) in primary care: discrete choice experiments of general practitioners and the general public in England.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- Healthcare practices that increase the quality of care in cancer trajectories from a general practice perspective: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2022Article
- Interventions to improve early cancer diagnosis of symptomatic individuals: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Non-attendance at urgent referral appointments for suspected cancer: a qualitative study to gain understanding from patients and GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Faster Diagnosis Standard (FDS) is to be introduced in England in 2020. This standard is a new policy in which patients should have cancer ruled out or diagnosed within 28 days of referral.
aimTo explore public attitudes towards the FDS within the context of their recent referral experiences. DESIGN AND
settingFour 90-minute focus groups (two in Guildford, two in Bradford).
methodParticipants aged >50 years without a current cancer diagnosis (
resultsThe largest cause of concern was the waiting process for obtaining test results. Most had experienced swift referral, and it was difficult for participants to understand how the new standard could impact upon time progressing through the system. Responsibility for meeting the standard was also a concern: participants did not see their own behaviours as a form of involvement. The GP's role was conceptualised by patients as communicating about their referral, establishing patients' preferences for information, and continued involvement at each stage of the referral process. The standard legitimised chasing for test results, but 28 days was considered too long.
conclusionPatients should be asked what they would like to know about their referral. GPs should be more transparent about the referral process and the potential for a lack of clarity around next steps.
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.