Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30901334›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

'It was nothing that you would think was anything': Qualitative analysis of appraisal and help seeking preceding brain cancer diagnosis.

Suzanne E Scott, Clarissa Penfold, Smiji Saji, Sarah Curtis, Colin Watts, Willie Hamilton, Alexis J Joannides, Fiona M Walter

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Why don't patients seek help for chronic post-surgical pain after knee replacement? A qualitative investigation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  6. Missed opportunities for diagnosing brain tumours in primary care: a qualitative study of patient experiences.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Suzanne E ScottCentre for Oral, Clinical & Translational Science, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5536-9612
Clarissa PenfoldThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Smiji SajiClinical School, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Sarah CurtisCentre for Oral, Clinical & Translational Science, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Colin WattsInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Willie HamiltonWillie Hamilton, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Alexis J JoannidesDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Fiona M WalterThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
University of Cambridge · GBGuy's Hospital · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK C8640/A23385
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe patient's interpretation of the events and decisions leading up to consultation with a healthcare professional for symptoms of brain cancer is under researched. The aim of this study was to document responses to noticing the changes preceding a diagnosis of brain cancer and living with them, focusing on appraisal of changes and the decision to seek (and re-seek) help, with attention to the psychological processes underpinning the appraisal and help-seeking intervals.

methodIn this qualitative study set in Eastern and NW England, in-depth interviews with adult patients recently diagnosed with primary brain cancer and their family members were analysed thematically, using the Model of Pathways to Treatment as a conceptual framework.

results39 adult patients were interviewed. Regarding the appraisal interval, cognitive heuristics were found to underpin explanations of changes/symptoms. The subtlety and normality of changes often suggested nothing serious was wrong. Common explanations included stress or being busy at work, or age and these did not seem to warrant a visit to a doctor. Explanations and the decision to seek help were made within the social context, with friends, family and work colleagues contributing to appraisal and help-seeking decisions. Regarding the help-seeking interval, barriers to seeking help reflected components of Social Cognitive Theory, and included having other priorities, outcome expectations (e.g. 'feeling silly', not sure much can be done about it, not wanting to waste doctors' time) and accessibility of a preferred healthcare professional.

conclusionApplication of psychological theory facilitated understanding of the influences on cognition and behaviour. The study highlights implications for theory, awareness campaigns and potential opportunities promoting more timely help-seeking.

Indexed as

Help-Seeking BehaviorPsychological TheoryAdultAgedBrain NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID30901334
PMCPMC6430370
OpenAlexW2921985875

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.