ReviewJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Educational Interventions to Reduce Cancer Diagnostic Delays in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic delays contribute to poorer outcomes in cancer care. Because most symptomatic patients enter the healthcare system through general practice, educational interventions for primary care teams could lead to earlier investigation, referral, and follow-up. We mapped educational interventions in primary care designed to reduce diagnostic delays for cancer and described their formats, targeted behaviours, outcomes, and gaps. We undertook a scoping review using the PRISMA-ScR checklist. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 to January 2026. We included studies (and protocols) describing or evaluating educational interventions for primary care clinicians and teams intended to improve the timeliness of symptomatic cancer diagnosis (for example, safety-netting, diagnostic activity, referral quality, or time-based outcomes). Data were charted and synthesised descriptively and thematically. Sixteen publications representing ten distinct intervention programmes were included. Interventions ranged from brief clinician teaching and educational outreach to simulation-based mastery learning, national or regional continuing medical education programmes, whole-practice workshops, and education bundled with electronic decision support or electronic safety-netting tools. Most evaluations reported improvements in clinician competence, confidence, or process proxies (for example, documentation quality or diagnostic activity). Only a small number of studies assessed time-based outcomes such as primary care interval or total diagnostic interval, and effects were mixed or null; several digital interventions were further constrained by workflow misfit and low uptake. Educational interventions in primary care can improve behaviours relevant to earlier cancer diagnosis, but evidence for reductions in diagnostic delays remains limited. Future work should integrate education with practice systems, use standardised interval definitions, and evaluate timeliness and equity outcomes. This review synthesises evidence to inform curriculum design and continuing professional development for primary care teams, focusing on teachable behaviours (diagnostic reasoning under uncertainty, safety-netting, and appropriate thresholding for investigation/referral) that can shorten diagnostic intervals for cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42277388What 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.