Joint Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE)-Asian Pacific Society of Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE) clinical practice guidelines on the use of non-invasive biomarkers for diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing CRC related mortality. Current screening methods include endoscopy based and biomarker based approaches. This guideline is a joint official statement of the Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and the Asian Pacific Society of Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE), developed in response to the increasing use of, and accumulating supportive evidence for the role of, non-invasive biomarkers for the diagnosis of CRC and its precursor lesions. A systematic review of 678 publications and a two stage Delphi consensus process involving 16 clinicians in various disciplines was undertaken to develop 32 evidence based and expert opinion based recommendations for the use of faecal immunochemical tests, faecal based tumour biomarkers or microbial biomarkers, and blood based tumour biomarkers for the detection of CRC and adenoma. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided on indications, patient selection and strengths and limitations of each screening tool. Future research to inform clinical applications are discussed alongside objective measurement of research priorities. This joint APAGE-APSDE practice guideline is intended to provide an up-to-date guide to assist clinicians worldwide in utilising non-invasive biomarkers for CRC screening; it has particular salience for clinicians in the Asia-Pacific region.

Long-term consumer involvement in cancer research: Working towards partnership.

BACKGROUND: Meaningful consumer involvement in health research is important. There are limited data on how to maintain long-term consumer involvement. OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and facilitators to meaningful long-term consumer involvement in research. DESIGN: Six semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of the Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4) Community Advisory Group (CAG) and included the review of 40 supporting documents. Interviews and documents were analysed using inductive thematic analysis; the themes were mapped onto the domains of Cancer Australia's National Framework for Consumer Involvement in Cancer Control. RESULTS: Equality, respect and feeling valued were facilitators to long-term involvement. These elements were part of an overarching theme of organizational commitment. Creating balance, managing competing deadlines and integrating a consumer role with a personal life were key barriers to involvement. These themes mapped strongly to the National Framework for Consumer Involvement in Cancer Control domains of committed organizations, capable consumers, inclusive groups and shared focus. CONCLUSION: Research networks should reflect on several factors to maintain long-term consumer involvement. Networks should aim to build a meaningful relationship, using clear communication and education, that reinforces the value and scope of a consumers contributions. We found that consumer education needs do not diminish over time and adequate skill development, support and feedback need to be on-going. Creating regular opportunities for feedback and reflection are important to continue to meet best practice guidelines.

The Chest Australia Trial: a randomised controlled trial of an intervention to increase consultation rates in smokers at risk of lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: International research has focused on screening and mass media campaigns to promote earlier patient presentation and detect lung cancer earlier. This trial tested the effect of a behavioural intervention in people at increased risk of lung cancer on help-seeking for respiratory symptoms. METHODS: Parallel, individually randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were long-term smokers with at least 20 pack-years, aged 55 and above. The CHEST intervention entailed a consultation to discuss and implement a self-help manual, followed by self-monitoring reminders to encourage help-seeking for respiratory symptoms. The control group received a brief discussion about lung health. Both groups had baseline spirometry. Telephone randomisation was conducted, 1:1, stratified Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea score and general practice. Participants could not be blinded; data extraction and statistical analyses were performed blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was respiratory consultation rates. RESULTS: We randomised 551 participants (274 intervention, 277 control) from whom the primary outcome was determined for 542 (269 intervention, 273 control). There was a 40% relative increase in respiratory consultations in the intervention group: (adjusted rates (95% CI) intervention 0.57 (0.47 to 0.70), control 0.41 (0.32 to 0.52), relative rate 1.40 (1.08 to 1.82); p=0.0123). There were no significant differences in time to first respiratory consultation, total consultation rates or measures of psychological harm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $A1289 per additional respiratory consultation. CONCLUSIONS: A behavioural intervention can significantly increase consulting for respiratory symptoms in patients at increased risk of lung cancer. This intervention could have an important role in primary care as part of a broader approach to improve respiratory health in patients at higher risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (1261300039 3752). This was registered pre-results.

The Improving Rural Cancer Outcomes Trial: a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention to reduce time to diagnosis in rural cancer patients in Western Australia.

BACKGROUND: Rural Australians have poorer survival for most common cancers, due partially to later diagnosis. Internationally, several initiatives to improve cancer outcomes have focused on earlier presentation to healthcare and timely diagnosis. We aimed to measure the effect of community-based symptom awareness and general practice-based educational interventions on the time to diagnosis in rural patients presenting with breast, prostate, colorectal or lung cancer in Western Australia. METHODS: 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomised controlled trial. Community Intervention: cancer symptom awareness campaign tailored for rural Australians. GP intervention: resource card with symptom risk assessment charts and local cancer referral pathways implemented through multiple academic detailing visits. Trial Area A received the community symptom awareness and Trial Area B acted as the community campaign control region. Within both Trial Areas general practices were randomised to the GP intervention or control. PRIMARY OUTCOME: total diagnostic interval (TDI). RESULTS: 1358 people with incident breast, prostate, colorectal or lung cancer were recruited. There were no significant differences in the median or ln mean TDI at either intervention level (community intervention vs control: median TDI 107.5 vs 92 days; ln mean difference 0.08 95% CI -0.06-0.23 P=0.27; GP intervention vs control: median TDI 97 vs 96.5 days; ln mean difference 0.004 95% CI -0.18-0.19 P=0.99). There were no significant differences in the TDI when analysed by factorial design, tumour group or sub-intervals of the TDI. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest trial to test the effect of community campaign or GP interventions on timeliness of cancer diagnosis. We found no effect of either intervention. This may reflect limited dose of the interventions, or the limited duration of follow-up. Alternatively, these interventions do not have a measurable effect on time to cancer diagnosis.

Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review.

AIM: To provide a systematic synthesis of primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs. BACKGROUND: Globally, population-based cancer screening programs (bowel, breast, and cervical) have sub-optimal participation rates. Primary healthcare workers (PHCWs) have an important role in facilitating a patient's decision to screen; however, barriers exist to their engagement. It remains unclear how to best optimize the role of PHCWs to increase screening participation. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted from January 2010 until November 2023 in the following databases: Medline (OVID), EMBASE, and CINAHL. Data extraction, quality assessment, and synthesis were conducted. Studies were separated by whether they assessed the effect of a single-component or multi-component intervention and study type. FINDINGS: Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 36 originated from the USA. Fifteen studies were investigations of single-component interventions, and 34 studies were of multi-component interventions. Interventions with a positive effect on screening participation were predominantly multi-component, and most included combinations of audit and feedback, provider reminders, practice-facilitated assessment and improvement, and patient education across all screening programs. Regarding bowel screening, provision of screening kits at point-of-care was an effective strategy to increase participation. Taking a 'whole-of-practice approach' and identifying a 'practice champion' were found to be contextual factors of effective interventions.The findings suggest that complex interventions comprised of practitioner-focused and patient-focused components are required to increase cancer screening participation in primary care settings. This study provides novel understanding as to what components and contextual factors should be included in primary care practice-based interventions.

Diagnosing cancer in the bush: a mixed methods study of GP and specialist diagnostic intervals in rural Western Australia.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have focused on the treatment received by rural cancer patients and have not examined their diagnostic pathways as reasons for poorer outcomes in rural Australia. OBJECTIVES: To compare and explore diagnostic pathways and diagnostic intervals in patients with breast, lung, prostate or colorectal cancer from rural Western Australia (WA) to inform future interventions aimed at reducing time to cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Mixed methods study of people recently diagnosed with breast, lung, prostate or colorectal cancer from the Goldfields and Great Southern Regions of WA. Qualitative interviews explored participants' diagnostic pathways and factors underlying differences observed between individuals and cancers. Data were extracted from general practice and hospital records to calculate intervals from first presentation in general practice to final diagnosis. RESULTS: Sixty-six participants were recruited (43 Goldfields and 23 Great Southern region; 24 breast, 20 colorectal, 14 prostate and 8 lung cancers). There were significant overall differences between cancers in time from presentation in general practice to referral (P = 0.045), from referral to seeing a specialist (P = 0.010) and from specialist appointment to cancer diagnosis (P ≤ 0.001). These differences were due to the nature of presenting symptoms, access to diagnostic tests and multiple visits to specialists. Breast cancer was diagnosed more quickly because its symptoms are more specific and due to better access to diagnostic tests and specialist one-stop clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve cancer diagnosis in rural Australia should focus on better case selection in general practice and better access to diagnostic tests, especially for prostate and colorectal cancers.

Factors affecting patient decisions to undergo testing for cancer symptoms: an exploratory qualitative study in Australian general practice.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting to their GP are often concerned their symptoms may be due to cancer. However, there is a lack of evidence on the factors that influence patient decisions to undergo investigation for suspected cancer in the general practice setting. AIM: To identify the factors influencing patient decisions to undertake investigations for suspected cancer in general practice. DESIGN & SETTING: An exploratory qualitative, semi-structured interview study of patients attending rural and metropolitan general practices in Victoria, Australia. METHOD: A purposive sample of 15 general practice patients aged ≥40 years participated. Thematic analysis of transcripts drew on interpretative description methodology and shared decision-making (SDM) theory. RESULTS: Cancer-related concerns such as 'cancer worry' prompt patients to seek investigations from their GP. Participants prefer that their symptoms are investigated regardless of cancer risk. The perceived 'best test' provides the most reassurance. Trust and SDM enhance dialogue between patients and GPs about diagnostic testing strategies. Deterrents to testing included out-of-pocket costs, waiting time, travel time, and competing work and family demands. CONCLUSION: There may be a mismatch between efforts to rationalise investigation use and patient preferences for investigation. SDM that incorporates patient concerns, facilitators, and barriers to testing may ensure appropriate and timely investigation of cancer symptoms.

Variation in suspected cancer referral pathways in primary care: comparative analysis across the International Benchmarking Cancer Partnership.

BACKGROUND: International variations in cancer outcomes persist and may be influenced by differences in the accessibility and organisation of cancer patient pathways. More evidence is needed to understand to what extent variations in the structure of primary care referral pathways for cancer investigation contribute to differences in the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes in different countries. AIM: To explore the variation in primary care referral pathways for the management of suspected cancer across different countries. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive comparative analysis using mixed methods across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) countries. METHOD: Schematics of primary care referral pathways were developed across 10 ICBP jurisdictions. The schematics were initially developed using the Aarhus statement (a resource providing greater insight and precision into early cancer diagnosis research) and were further supplemented with expert insights through consulting leading experts in primary care and cancer, existing ICBP data, a focused review of existing evidence on the management of suspected cancer, published primary care cancer guidelines, and evaluations of referral tools and initiatives in primary care. RESULTS: Referral pathway schematics for 10 ICBP jurisdictions were presented alongside a descriptive comparison of the organisation of primary care management of suspected cancer. Several key areas of variation across countries were identified: inflexibility of referral pathways, lack of a managed route for non-specific symptoms, primary care practitioner decision-making autonomy, direct access to investigations, and use of emergency routes. CONCLUSION: Analysing the differences in referral processes can prompt further research to better understand the impact of variation on the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes. Studying these schematics in local contexts may help to identify opportunities to improve care and facilitate discussions on what may constitute best referral practice.

SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer.

Background: SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months. Methods: The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p. Findings: 150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients. Interpretation: SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors. Funding: Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

Which Test Is Best? A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Risk Calculator and Recommendations on Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviour in General Practice.

INTRODUCTION: This cluster-randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the effect of the "Which test is best?" tool on risk-appropriate screening (RAS) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. METHODS: General practices in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, and a random sub-sample of 460 patients (aged 25-74 years) per practice were invited by post. Clusters were computer randomized independently of the researchers to an online CRC risk calculator with risk-based recommendations versus usual care. Primary and secondary outcomes were RAS and screening uptake via self-reported 5-year screening behaviour after 12 months follow-up. The usual care group (UCG) also self-reported 5-year CRC screening behaviour at 12 month post-randomization. RESULTS: Fifty-six practices were randomized (27 to the intervention and 29 to the control, 55 practices participated) with 818 intervention and 677 controls completing the primary outcome measure. The intervention significantly increased RAS in high-risk participants compared with UCG (80.0% vs. 64.0%, respectively; OR = 3.14, 95% CI: 1.25-7.96) but not in average-risk (44.9% vs. 49.5%, respectively; OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.99-1.12) or moderate-risk individuals (67.9% vs. 81.1%, respectively; OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.12-1.33). Faecal occult blood testing uptake over 12 months was increased compared with the UCG (24.9% vs. 15.1%; adjusted OR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.24-2.22), and there was a non-significant increase in colonoscopies during the same period (16.6% vs. 12.2%; adjusted OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 0.97-2.08). CONCLUSION: An online CRC risk calculator with risk-based screening recommendations increased RAS in high-risk participants and improved screening uptake overall within a 12-month follow-up period. Such tools may be useful for facilitating the uptake of risk-based screening guidelines.

Exploring a novel method for optimising the implementation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool into primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: We developed a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool ('CRISP') to provide individualised risk-based advice for colorectal cancer screening. Using known environmental, behavioural, and familial risk factors, CRISP was designed to facilitate tailored screening advice to patients aged 50 to 74 years in general practice. In parallel to a randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool, we developed and evaluated an evidence-based implementation strategy. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used to explore the implementation of CRISP in general practice. Using one general practice in regional Victoria, Australia, as a 'laboratory', we tested ways to embed CRISP into routine clinical practice. General practitioners, nurses, and operations manager co-designed the implementation methods with researchers, focussing on existing practice processes that would be sustainable. Researchers interviewed the staff regularly to assess the successfulness of the strategies employed, and implementation methods were adapted throughout the study period in response to feedback from qualitative interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the development of the interview guide and intervention strategy. Coding was inductive and themes were developed through consensus between the authors. Emerging themes were mapped onto the CFIR domains and a fidelity checklist was developed to ensure CRISP was being used as intended. RESULTS: Between December 2016 and September 2019, 1 interviews were conducted, both face-to-face and via videoconferencing (Zoom). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded. Themes were mapped onto the following CFIR domains: (1) 'characteristics of the intervention': CRISP was valued but time consuming; (2) 'inner setting': the practice was open to changing systems; 3. 'outer setting': CRISP helped facilitate screening; (4) 'individual characteristics': the practice staff were adaptable and able to facilitate adoption of new clinical processes; and (5) 'processes': fidelity checking, and education was important. CONCLUSIONS: These results describe a novel method for exploring implementation strategies for a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in the context of a parallel RCT testing clinical efficacy. The study identified successful and unsuccessful implementation strategies using an adaptive methodology over time. This method emphasised the importance of co-design input to make an intervention like CRISP sustainable for use in other practices and with other risk tools.

How to Realize the Benefits of Point-of-Care Testing at the General Practice: A Comparison of Four High-Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: In some countries, such as the Netherlands and Norway, point-of-care testing (POCT) is more widely implemented in general practice compared to countries such as England and Australia. To comprehend what is necessary to realize the benefits of POCT, regarding its integration in primary care, it would be beneficial to have an overview of the structure of healthcare operations and the transactions between stakeholders (also referred to as value networks). The aim of this paper is to identify the current value networks in place applying to POCT implementation at general practices in England, Australia, Norway and the Netherlands and to compare these networks in terms of seven previously published factors that support the successful implementation, sustainability and scale-up of innovations. METHODS: The value networks were described based on formal guidelines and standards published by the respective governments, organizational bodies and affiliates. The value network of each country was validated by at least two relevant stakeholders from the respective country. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that the biggest challenge for countries with low POCT uptake was the lack of effective communication between the several organizations involved with POCT as well as the high workload for general practitioners (GPs) aiming to implement POCT. It is observed that countries with a single national authority responsible for POCT have a better uptake as they can govern the task of POCT roll-out and management and reduce the workload for GPs by assisting with set-up, quality control, training and support. CONCLUSION: Setting up a single national authority may be an effective step towards realizing the full benefits of POCT. Although it is possible for day-to-day operations to fall under the responsibility of the GP, this is only feasible if support and guidance are readily available to ensure that the workload associated with POCT is limited and as low as possible.

Patients' Experiences of Using Skin Self-monitoring Apps With People at Higher Risk of Melanoma: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia. Up to 75% of melanomas are first detected by patients or their family or friends. Many mobile apps for melanoma exist, including apps to encourage skin self-monitoring to improve the likelihood of early detection. Previous research in this area has focused on their development, diagnostic accuracy, or validation. Little is known about patients' views and experiences of using these apps. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand patients' views and experiences of using commercially available melanoma skin self-monitoring mobile apps for a period of 3 months. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted in two populations: primary care (where the MelatoolsQ tool was used to identify patients who were at increased risk of melanoma) and secondary care (where patients had a previous diagnosis of melanoma, stages T0-T3a). Participants downloaded 2 of the 4 mobile apps for skin self-monitoring (SkinVision, UMSkinCheck, Mole Monitor, or MySkinPal) and were encouraged to use them for 3 months. After 3 months, a semistructured interview was conducted with participants to discuss their experiences of using the skin self-monitoring mobile apps. RESULTS: A total of 54 participants were recruited in the study, with 37% (20) of participants from primary care and 62% (34) from secondary care. Interviews were conducted with 34 participants when data saturation was reached. Most participants did not use the apps at all (n=12) or tried them once but did not continue (n=14). Only 8 participants used the apps to assist with skin self-monitoring for the entire duration of the study. Patients discussed the apps in the context of the importance of early detection and their current skin self-monitoring behaviors. A range of features of perceived quality of each app affected engagement to support skin self-monitoring. Participants described their skin self-monitoring routines and potential mismatches with the app reminders. They also described the technical and practical difficulties experienced when using the apps for skin self-monitoring. The app's positioning within existing relationships with health care providers was crucial to understand the use of the apps. CONCLUSIONS: This study of patients at increased risk of melanoma highlights several barriers to engagement with apps to support skin self-monitoring. The results highlight the wide-ranging and dynamic influences on engagement with mobile apps, which extend beyond app design and relate to broader contextual factors about skin self-monitoring routines and relationships with health care providers.

Look who's talking now: Cancer in primary care on Twitter. An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Twitter is a microblogging platform that helps share information. It is a dynamic tool that has been embraced by many user types including consumers and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Currently, there are no data on how cancer in primary care features on Twitter. AIM: To explore the type of users and information shared about cancer in primary care on Twitter. DESIGN & SETTING: A descriptive exploratory study took place of publicly available Twitter data. METHOD: Tweets were searched between July 2015 and June 2017 for 'GP', 'general practice', 'primary care', or 'general practitioner' in conjunction with 'cancer'. A 20% random sample was coded for geographic location, user type, type of tweet, and theme. Tweet sentiment was analysed using R package sentimentr. Content that gained traction was compared by combining original tweets, retweets, favourites, and duration. RESULTS: There were a total of 3413 tweets from 1611 users in 44 countries. Consumers were the largest user group followed by health organisations, healthcare professionals, and the media. The most common theme across user types was diagnostic delay. Other themes that emerged included cancer screening, symptom awareness, and early diagnosis. Consumers published more negative tweets, particularly in relation to diagnostic delay. Health organisations focused on symptom awareness and screening. Over half of media tweets were stories that featured delayed diagnosis or screening. CONCLUSION: A broad range of users engage with Twitter to share information about cancer in primary care. Content is different between user groups, but diagnostic delay and symptom awareness are common themes. Healthcare and professional organisations may need to consider approaches to counter negative messages about diagnostic delay.

Measuring patient experience of diagnostic care and acceptability of testing.

A positive patient experience has been long recognised as a key feature of a high-quality health service, however, often assessment of patient experience excludes diagnostic care. Experience of diagnostic services and the acceptability of diagnostic tests are often conflated, with lack of clarity about when and how either should be measured. These problems contrast with the growth in the development and marketing of new tests and investigation strategies. Building on the appraisal of current practice, we propose that the experience of diagnostic services and the acceptability of tests should be assessed separately, and describe distinct components of each. Such evaluations will enhance the delivery of patient-centred care, and facilitate patient choice.

Regular primary care decreases the likelihood of mortality in older people with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of regular general practitioner (GPs) visits, separately from the frequency of visits, on the likelihood of all-cause death and epilepsy-related hospitalization in older Western Australian (WA) patients (>or=65 years) with diagnosed epilepsy. METHODS: We used routinely collected, whole-population linked, administrative medical data to ascertain the study population, the exposure, and outcomes. We identified 3537 patients aged >or=65 years who had been hospitalized at least once for epilepsy diagnosis in WA between 1992 and 2006. Pattern of GP visits was determined in the first 3 years of observation, followed by up to 11.5 years of follow-up for outcome ascertainment. A GP visit regularity index was calculated and quartiles of GP consultation regularity derived. Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for multiple confounders, including GP visit frequency, were used to achieve the study aim. RESULTS: Patients in the least regular GP visit quartile had the worst all-cause survival with the difference in survival curves between GP visit regularity quartiles being significant (P = 0.0005). Compared with patients in the least regular quartile, patients in the second least regular (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.41-0.93), second most regular (HR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.22-0.62), and most regular (HR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.23-0.78) quartiles had a significantly decreased likelihood of all-cause death. GP visit regularity did not appear to affect the likelihood of a second hospitalization for epilepsy. CONCLUSIONS: Higher regularity between GP visits, as distinct from higher GP visit frequency, reduces the likelihood of subsequent mortality in patients with the seize disorder.

Comparing Pathways to Diagnosis and Treatment for Rural and Urban Patients With Colorectal or Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer patients living in rural areas have poorer outcomes than urban counterparts, but such disparities are not found for breast cancer. Although time to care may contribute to rural-urban disparities, few studies examine patient experiences to understand how and why delays may occur. We compared rural and urban patient experiences of pathways to colorectal or breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 43 patients (49% colorectal; 60% rural, median 7 months postdiagnosis). A framework analysis was applied using the Model of Pathways to Treatment. FINDINGS: Rural and urban patients expressed similar attitudes and reasons for prolonged symptom appraisal and help-seeking triggers. However, some rural patients reported long waiting times to see a Primary Care Practitioner (PCP) and perceived greater gatekeeping to diagnostic services. Patient perceptions of the urgency of PCP referral could impact behavior, such as waiting longer to book appointments. Colorectal cancer patients reported more variable types of symptoms, interpretation, and coping strategies, as well as diverse presentation routes and reduced sense of urgency, compared to breast cancer patients. Waiting time for colonoscopy could be long, particularly in the public health system, but mammograms were quickly arranged. CONCLUSIONS: Pathway variation was more evident by cancer type than residential location. However, access to primary care and diagnostic services for rural patients with colorectal cancer may be important policy targets. Future research should investigate the impact of diagnostic service accessibility on PCP referral behavior to further understand rural-urban disparities.

Patient symptom experience prior to a diagnosis of oesophageal or gastric cancer: a multi-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Late stage diagnosis of oesophageal and gastric cancer is common, which limits treatment options and contributes to poor survival. AIM: To explore patients' understanding, experience and presentation of symptoms before a diagnosis of oesophageal or gastric cancer. DESIGN & SETTING: Between May 2016 and October 2017, all patients newly diagnosed with oesophageal or gastric cancer were identified at weekly multidisciplinary team meetings at two large hospitals in England. A total of 321 patients were invited to participate in a survey and secondary care medical record review; 127 (40%) participants responded (102 patients had oesophageal cancer and 25 had gastric cancer). Of these, 26 participated in an additional face-to-face interview. METHOD: Survey and medical record data were analysed descriptively. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis, informed by the Model of Pathways to Treatment. RESULTS: Participants experienced multiple symptoms before diagnosis. The most common symptom associated with oesophageal cancer was dysphagia (n = 66, 65%); for gastric cancer, fatigue or tiredness (n = 20, 80%) was the most common symptom. Understanding of heartburn, reflux and indigestion, and associated symptoms differed between participants and often contrasted with clinical perspectives. Bodily changes attributed to personal and/or lifestyle factors were self-managed, with presentation to primary care prompted when symptoms persisted, worsened, or impacted daily life, or were notably severe or unusual. Participants rarely presented all symptoms at the initial consultation. CONCLUSION: The patient interval may be lengthened by misinterpretation of key terms, such as heartburn, or misattribution or non-recognition of important bodily changes. Clearly defined symptom awareness messages may encourage earlier help-seeking, while eliciting symptom experience and meanings in primary care consultations could prompt earlier referral and diagnosis.

Understanding implementation and usefulness of electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) for melanoma in English primary care: a qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis of the serious skin cancer melanoma can improve patient outcomes. Clinical guidelines suggest that GPs use checklists, such as the 7-point checklist (7PCL), to assess pigmented lesions. In 2016, the 7PCL was disseminated by EMIS as an electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) tool. AIM: To understand GP and patient perspectives on the implementation and usefulness of the eCDS. DESIGN & SETTING: Semi-structured interviews with GPs and patients were undertaken. The interviews took place in four general practices in the south east of England following consultations using the eCDS for suspicious pigmented lesions. METHOD: Data were collected from semi-structured face-to-face interviews with GPs and from telephone interviews with patients. They were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the analysis using thematic approaches. RESULTS: A total of 14 interviews with GPs and 14 interviews with patients were undertaken. Most GPs reported that, as the eCDS was embedded in the medical record, it was useful, easy to use, time-efficient, and could facilitate patient-GP communication. They were less clear that it could meet policy or patient needs to improve early diagnosis, and some felt that it could lead to unnecessary referrals. Few felt that it had been sufficiently implemented at practice level. More felt confident with their own management of moles, and that the eCDS could be most useful for borderline decision-making. No patients were aware that the eCDS had been used during their consultation. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of a new tool, such as eCDS for melanoma, requires GPs to perceive its value and understand how it can best be integrated into clinical practice. Disseminating a tool without such explanations is unlikely to promote its adoption into routine practice.

Decision support tools to improve cancer diagnostic decision making in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of cancer in primary care is complex and challenging. Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDSTs) have been proposed as an approach to improve GP decision making, but no systematic review has examined their role in cancer diagnosis. AIM: To investigate whether eCDSTs improve diagnostic decision making for cancer in primary care and to determine which elements influence successful implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of relevant studies conducted worldwide and published in English between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2018. METHOD: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and a consultation of reference lists and citation tracking was carried out. Exclusion criteria included the absence of eCDSTs used in asymptomatic populations, and studies that did not involve support delivered to the GP. The most relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were applied according to study design of the included paper. RESULTS: Of the nine studies included, three showed improvements in decision making for cancer diagnosis, three demonstrated positive effects on secondary clinical or health service outcomes such as prescribing, quality of referrals, or cost-effectiveness, and one study found a reduction in time to cancer diagnosis. Barriers to implementation included trust, the compatibility of eCDST recommendations with the GP's role as a gatekeeper, and impact on workflow. CONCLUSION: eCDSTs have the capacity to improve decision making for a cancer diagnosis, but the optimal mode of delivery remains unclear. Although such tools could assist GPs in the future, further well-designed trials of all eCDSTs are needed to determine their cost-effectiveness and the most appropriate implementation methods.