Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42875744›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2026

Primary healthcare providers' strategies of handling patients presenting with potential cancer symptoms following the introduction of standardized cancer patient pathways in Sweden.

Petter Fjällström, Anna-Britt Coe, Mikael Lilja, Senada Hajdarevic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Petter FjällströmDepartment of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, SE-901 87, Sweden. Petter.fjallstrom@umu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3503-7164
Anna-Britt Coe *Department of Social and Psychological Studies, Karlstad University, Karlstad, SE-651 88, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1975-9060
Mikael Lilja *Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Unit of Research, Education, and Development, Östersund Hospital, Umeå University, Umeå, Umeå, SE-901 87, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5203-9877
Senada Hajdarevic *Department of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, SE-901 87, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0661-8269

Funding

a regional agreement between Umeå University and Västerbotten County Council (ALF) RV-731891, RV-744851, RV-855211, RV-931881, and RV-939898Cancer Research Foundation of Northern Sweden LP-18-2193Healthcare Region of Northern Sweden (VISARE NORR) 939897, 929986, and 838121
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly cancer diagnosis is a healthcare priority, but identifying patients who may have cancer remains challenging because alarm symptoms are often non-specific and may also indicate other conditions. To facilitate timely cancer diagnosis, standardized cancer patient pathways (CPP) have been introduced in several health systems, including Sweden. Since most patients diagnosed with cancer begin their pathway in primary healthcare (PHC), nurses and physicians play a central role in assessing symptoms and determining whether CPP criteria for suspected cancer are fulfilled. Although research concerning the introduction of CPPs is expanding, knowledge is lacking on how CPPs influence Swedish PHC nurses' and physicians' ways of handling patients with potential cancer symptoms. Therefore, this study aimed to explore PHC providers' strategies of using CPPs when handling patients presenting symptoms that may indicate cancer.

methodA constructivist Grounded Theory Method was utilized to collect and analyze qualitative data through group interviews in PHC units in northern Sweden. Six units were included, and nine group interviews were conducted from March to November 2019, involving 21 nurses and 20 physicians. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed.

resultsThe results showed a process of handling challenges and opportunities when suspecting cancer in PHC and using CPPs through three categories focusing on strategies. First, physicians and nurses prioritized patients' needs of urgent care through conviction by using their professional competence to assess symptoms, rather than strictly relying on the symptom descriptions outlined in CPPs, with nurses primarily identifying these symptoms. Second, while physicians used creative strategies to make CPP referrals work for patients whose symptoms did not align with the templates, nurses similarly used creative strategies to raise suspicions and facilitate further assessment despite the absence of clear alarm symptoms. Third, physicians and nurses sensitively informed patients about CPPs, balancing between explaining the next investigation steps and safeguarding potential illness-related anxiety by avoiding the discussion as much as possible.

conclusionFindings highlight the important role of PHC providers in using CPPs for patients with potential cancer by identifying symptoms, investigating suspicions, and sensitively informing patients. CPPs were perceived as facilitating faster cancer diagnostic pathways when they aligned with PHC providers' clinical assessments, but challenges arose when clinical assessments misalign with predetermined standardized packages. These findings indicate the importance of involving PHC providers in refining CPP usage. Furthermore, communicating clearly about potential cancer diagnoses is necessary, but not as simple as it may seem.

Indexed as

Critical PathwaysEarly Detection of CancerNeoplasmsPrimary Health CareAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchSwedenCancer patient pathwaysCancer symptomsPrimary healthcareProfessional competenciesStandardizationTimely diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID42875744
PMCPMC13670806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.