ArticleBJGP open2023
Earlier cancer diagnosis in primary care: a feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!
Article in BJGP open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health economic evaluation of Autism Adapted Safety Plans: findings on feasibility of tools from a pilot randomised controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2025Trial
- Educational Interventions to Reduce Cancer Diagnostic Delays in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Review
- 'ThinkCancer!': randomised feasibility trial of a novel practice-based early cancer diagnosis intervention.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUK cancer survival rates are much lower compared with other high-income countries. In primary care, there are opportunities for GPs and other healthcare professionals to act more quickly in response to presented symptoms that might represent cancer. ThinkCancer! is a complex behaviour change intervention aimed at primary care practice teams to improve the timely diagnosis of cancer.
aimTo explore the costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in primary care. DESIGN &
settingFeasibility economic analysis using a micro-costing approach, which was undertaken in 19 general practices in Wales, UK.
methodFrom an NHS perspective, micro-costing methodology was used to determine whether it was feasible to gather sufficient economic data to cost the ThinkCancer!
interventionOwing to the COVID-19 pandemic, ThinkCancer! was mainly delivered remotely online in a digital format. Budget impact analysis (BIA) and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the costs of face-to-face delivery of the ThinkCancer! intervention as intended pre-COVID-19.
resultsThe total costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention across 19 general practices in Wales was £25 030, with an average cost per practice of £1317 (standard deviation [SD]: 578.2). Findings from the BIA indicated a total cost of £34 630 for face-to-face delivery.
conclusionData collection methods were successful in gathering sufficient health economics data to cost the ThinkCancer!
interventionResults of this feasibility study will be used to inform a future definitive economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT).
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.