Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39567233›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2025

How GPs communicate the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway to patients: a qualitative study of GP-patient consultations.

Jessica Russell, Laura Boswell, Athena Ip, Jenny Harris, Hardeep Singh, Ashley Nd Meyer, Traber D Giardina, Afsana Bhuiya, Katriina L Whitaker, Georgia B Black

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Jessica RussellWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK j.b.russell@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3194-412X
Laura BoswellSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9611-7091
Athena IpSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8574-2569
Jenny HarrisSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8933-117X
Hardeep SinghCenter for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E DeBakey VA Medical Center, Texas, US.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4419-8974
Ashley Nd MeyerCenter for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E DeBakey VA Medical Center, Texas, US.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7993-8584
Traber D GiardinaCenter for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E DeBakey VA Medical Center, Texas, US.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9184-6524
Afsana BhuiyaCancer GP lead for North Central London Cancer Alliance, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2165-9192
Katriina L WhitakerSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0947-1840
Georgia B BlackWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2676-5071

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe UK National Institute for Health and Care (NICE) recommends that GPs inform patients referred onto the urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathway about what to expect from the service. However, there is a lack of evidence on patient experience and information needs at the point of referral. It is a challenge for GPs to communicate the reasons for referral and provide reassurance.

aimTo examine how GPs communicate a potential cancer diagnosis and USC referral in practice. DESIGN &

settingThis is a secondary analysis of a dataset of 23 audio-recorded GP-patient consultations, selected from a larger dataset of 200 consultations collected in Surrey and London, UK in 2017-2018. The consultations were selected based on inclusion criteria related to cancer discussions.

methodThis is a qualitative analysis of video-recordings of face-to-face patient consultations.

resultsWe found that most GPs informed patients that they might have cancer and engaged in reassurance using personalised risk statements. Some GPs avoided all mention of cancer, using symptom-led language instead. GPs focused on communicating practical rather than support-based information. Although most GPs informed patients that they would be seen by a specialist within 2 weeks, few discussed patients' support needs during the referral period.

conclusionClear communication about cancer in primary care is promoted in UK policy, and has an important role driving patient investigations attendance. The study highlights the need for further research on communication practices around cancer referral to improve patient understanding and experience. Our recommendations for enhanced communication may improve patient outcomes by optimising routes to diagnosis via primary care.

Indexed as

CancerConsultation skillsDiagnosisGeneral practitionersPrimary healthcare

Identifiers

PMID39567233
PMCPMC12421275

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.