SynthesisJournal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA
Multilevel factors associated with timeliness of care along the lung cancer care continuum: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFactors affecting time to lung cancer care may occur at multiple levels of influence.
objectiveThe study aimed to identify multilevel factors associated with delays in lung cancer care.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, Medline (PubMed), CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched using validated search terms for lung cancer and factors, health disparities and time/delay. Eligible studies included original articles with quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods designs that investigated health disparities in, risk factors for, or barriers to timely screening, confirmatory diagnosis, or treatment among patients with lung cancer or those at risk for lung cancer. Title/abstract (TIAB), and full-text screening, study quality assessment (QA), and data extraction were conducted by 2 reviewers.
results13,068, 2608, and 424 TIAB were identified from PubMed, CINAHL, and SCOPUS, respectively. After deduplication, 14,405 articles were screened and 74 full-texts were assessed. Fifteen studies (all quantitative) were selected for QA and data extracted. Based on the National Institutes of Health QA tool, 5, 6, and 4 studies were rated good, fair, and poor, respectively. Multilevel factors associated with diagnosis to treatment interval were: Patient (demographic - age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, region, health insurance; disease - comorbidity, lung cancer type, stage, tumor size, brain metastasis, and treatment), clinic setting (facility type), environmental (income, poverty, hospital supply, and subspecialist supply). Other intervals assessed include: screening to diagnosis, symptom to initial primary care provider visit, suspicious image to diagnostics, suspicious image to diagnosis, suspicious image to surgical referral, and surgical referral to surgery.
conclusionWe did not identify any qualitative or mixed-methods study. The quality of the included quantitative were fair-good. Qualitative and mixed-methods studies on the timeliness of lung cancer care are recommended to provide context on multilevel factors. The identified multilevel factors will help in intervention planning to select intervention components that address gaps in the timeliness of lung cancer care.
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.