Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33003999›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2020

Barriers and facilitators to colorectal cancer diagnosis in New Zealand: a qualitative study.

Tania Blackmore, Kimberley Norman, Jacquie Kidd, Shemana Cassim, Lynne Chepulis, Rawiri Keenan, Melissa Firth, Christopher Jackson, Tim Stokes, David Weller and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Tania BlackmoreMedical Research Centre, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. taniab@waikato.ac.nz.ORCID 0000-0002-9411-0440
Kimberley NormanMedical Research Centre, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Jacquie KiddAuckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Shemana CassimMedical Research Centre, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Lynne ChepulisMedical Research Centre, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Rawiri KeenanMedical Research Centre, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Melissa FirthMedical Research Centre, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Christopher JacksonDunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Tim StokesDepartment of General Practice and Rural Health, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
David WellerCentre for Population Health Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Jon EmeryMedicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Ross LawrensonMedical Research Centre, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Funding

Health Research Council of New Zealand 17/147
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew Zealand (NZ) has high rates of colorectal cancer but low rates of early diagnosis. Due to a lack of understanding of the pre-diagnostic experience from the patient's perspective, it is necessary to investigate potential patient and health system factors that contribute to longer diagnostic intervals. Previous qualitative studies have discussed delays using The Model of Pathways to Treatment, but this has not been explored in the NZ context. This study aimed to understand the patient experience and perception of their general practitioner (GP) through the diagnostic process in the Waikato region of NZ. In particular, we sought to investigate potential barriers and facilitators that contribute to longer diagnostic intervals.

methodsEthical approval for this study was granted by the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee. Twenty-eight participants, diagnosed with colorectal cancer, were interviewed about their experience. Semi-structured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using The Model of Pathways to Treatment framework (intervals: appraisal, help-seeking, diagnostic).

resultsParticipant appraisal of symptoms was a barrier to prompt diagnosis, particularly if symptoms were normalised, intermittent, or isolated in occurrence. Successful self-management techniques also resulted in delayed help-seeking. However if symptoms worsened, disruption to work and daily routines were important facilitators to seeking a GP consultation. Participants positively appraised GPs if they showed good technical competence and were proactive in investigating symptoms. Negative GP appraisals were associated with a lack of physical examinations and misdiagnosis, and left participants feeling dehumanised during the diagnostic process. However high levels of GP interpersonal competence could override poor technical competence, resulting in an overall positive experience, even if the cancer was diagnosed at an advanced stage. Māori participants often appraised symptoms inclusive of their sociocultural environment and considered the impact of their symptoms in relation to family.

conclusionsThe findings of this study highlight the importance of tailored colorectal cancer symptom communication in health campaigns, and indicate the significance of the interpersonal competence aspect of GP-patient interactions. These findings suggest that interpersonal competence be overtly displayed in all GP interactions to ensure a higher likelihood of a positive experience for the patient.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsGeneral PractitionersHumansNew ZealandQualitative ResearchReferral and ConsultationColorectal cancerDelaysPatient-physician relationship

Identifiers

PMID33003999
PMCPMC7530960

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.