ArticleBJGP open2025
Clinical decision making and risk appraisal using electronic risk assessment tools for cancer diagnosis: a qualitative study of GP experiences.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) are intended to improve early primary care cancer diagnosis. eRATs, which interrupt a consultation to suggest a possibility of a cancer diagnosis, could impact clinical appraisal and the experience of the consultation. This study explores this issue using data collected within the context of the Electronic RIsk-assessment for CAncer (ERICA) trial.
aimTo explore views and experiences of GPs who used the ERICA eRATs, how the tools impacted their perception of risk and diagnostic thinking, and how this was communicated to patients. DESIGN &
settingQualitative interviews with GPs from English general practices undertaking the ERICA trial.
methodParticipants were purposefully sampled from practices participating in the intervention arm of the ERICA trial. Eighteen GPs undertook semi-structured interviews via Microsoft Teams. Thematic analysis was used to explore their perspectives of the impact of the eRATs on consultations, diagnostic thinking related to cancer and other conditions, and how this information is communicated to patients.
resultsThe following three themes were developed: 1) the armoury, whereby eRATs were perceived as 'additional armour', offering a layer of protection against missing a cancer diagnosis, the defence coming at a cost of anxiety and complexity of consultation; 2) 'three heads' making a decision. eRATs were seen as another actor in the consultation, separate from clinician and patient, and challenging GP autonomy; and 3) for whom is the eRAT output intended? GPs were conflicted about whether the numerical eRAT outputs were helpful when communicating with patients.
conclusioneRATs are appreciated as a defence against missing a cancer diagnosis. This defence comes at a cost and challenges GPs' freedom in communication and decision making.
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.