Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35940883›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2022

Primary care practice and cancer suspicion during the first three COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK: a qualitative study.

Claire Friedemann Smith, Brian D Nicholson, Yasemin Hirst, Susannah Fleming, Clare R Bankhead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Claire Friedemann SmithGP and National Institute for Health and Care Research academic clinical lecturer.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9934-5882
Brian D NicholsonGP and National Institute for Health and Care Research academic clinical lecturer.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0661-7362
Yasemin HirstInstitute of Epidemiology and Health, University College London, London.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0167-9428
Susannah FlemingNuffield Department of Primary Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7205-2051
Clare R BankheadNuffield Department of Primary Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1588-3849

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27880
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected UK primary care, and as a result the route to cancer diagnosis for many patients.

aimTo explore how the pandemic affected primary care practice, in particular cancer suspicion, referral, and diagnosis, and how this experience evolved as the pandemic progressed. DESIGN AND

settingSeventeen qualitative interviews were carried out remotely with primary care staff.

methodStaff from practices in England that expressed an interest in trialling an electronic safety-netting tool were invited to participate. Remote, semi-structured interviews were conducted from September 2020 to March 2021. Data analysis followed a thematic analysis and mind-mapping approach.

resultsThe first lockdown was described as providing time to make adjustments to allow remote and minimal-contact consultations but caused concerns over undetected cancers. These concerns were realised in summer and autumn 2020 as the participants began to see higher rates of late-stage cancer presentation. During the second and third lockdowns patients seemed more willing to consult. This combined with usual winter pressures, demands of the vaccine programme, and surging levels of COVID-19 meant that the third lockdown was the most difficult. New ways of working were seen as positive when they streamlined services but also unsafe if they prevented GPs from accessing all relevant information and resulted in delayed cancer diagnoses.

conclusionThe post-pandemic recovery of cancer care is dependent on the recovery of primary care. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated vulnerabilities in primary care but has also provided new ways of working that may help the recovery.

Indexed as

cancerCOVID-19early diagnosisgeneral practiceremote consulting

Identifiers

PMID35940883
PMCPMC9377348

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.