Advice after urgent suspected cancer referral when cancer is not found in England: Survey of patients' preferences and perceived acceptability.

Objective: No standardised approach exists to provide advice after urgent suspected cancer (USC) referral when cancer is not found. This study aimed to assess preferences and acceptability of receiving advice after USC referral related to: 1) managing ongoing symptoms, 2) responding to early symptoms of other cancers, 3) cancer screening, 4) reducing risks of future cancer. Methods: 2,541 patients from two English NHS Trusts were mailed a survey 1-3 months after having no cancer found following urgent suspected gastrointestinal or head and neck cancer referral. Participants were asked about: willingness to receive advice; prospective acceptability; preferences related to mode, timing and who should provide advice; and previous advice receipt. Results: 406 patients responded (16.0%) with 397 in the final analyses. Few participants had previously received advice, yet most were willing to. Willingness varied by type of advice: fewer were willing to receive advice about early symptoms of other cancers (88.9%) than advice related to ongoing symptoms (94.3%). Acceptability was relatively high for all advice types. Reducing the risk of future cancer advice was more acceptable. Acceptability was lower in those from ethnic minority groups, and with lower levels of education. Most participants preferred to receive advice from a doctor; with results or soon after; either face to face or via the telephone. Conclusions: There is a potential unmet need for advice after USC referral when no cancer is found. Equitable intervention design should focus on increasing acceptability for people from ethnic minority groups and those with lower levels of education.

"Notification! You May Have Cancer." Could Smartphones and Wearables Help Detect Cancer Early?

This viewpoint paper considers the authors' perspectives on the potential role of smartphones, wearables, and other technologies in the diagnosis of cancer. We believe that these technologies could be valuable additions in the pursuit of early cancer diagnosis, as they offer solutions to the timely detection of signals or symptoms and monitoring of subtle changes in behavior that may otherwise be missed. In addition to signal detection, technologies could assist symptom interpretation and guide and facilitate access to health care. This paper aims to provide an overview of the scientific rationale as to why these technologies could be valuable for early cancer detection, as well as outline the next steps for research and development to drive investigation into the potential for smartphones and wearables in this context and optimize implementation. We draw attention to potential barriers to successful implementation, including the difficulty of the development of signals and sensors with sufficient utility and accuracy through robust research with the target group. There are regulatory challenges; the potential for innovations to exacerbate inequalities; and questions surrounding acceptability, uptake, and correct use by the intended target group and health care practitioners. Finally, there is potential for unintended consequences on individuals and health care services including unnecessary anxiety, increased symptom burden, overinvestigation, and inappropriate use of health care resources.

Understanding GPs' referral decisions for younger patients with symptoms of cancer: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer incidence increases with age, so some clinical guidelines include patient age as one of the criteria used to decide whether a patient should be referred through the urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathway. Little is known about how strictly GPs adhere to these age criteria and what factors might influence their referral decisions for younger patients. AIM: To understand GPs' clinical decision making for younger patients with concerning symptoms who do not meet the age criteria for USC referral. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with GPs working in surgeries across England. METHOD: Participants (n = 23) were asked to recall consultations with younger patients with cancer symptoms, describe factors influencing their clinical decisions, and discuss their overall attitude to age thresholds in cancer referral guidelines. A thematic analysis guided by the Framework approach was used to identify recurring themes. RESULTS: GPs' decision making regarding younger patients was influenced by several factors, including personal experiences, patients' views and behaviour, level of clinical concern, and ability to bypass system constraints. GPs weighted potential benefits and harms of a referral outside guidelines both on the patient and the health system. If clinical concern was high, GPs used their knowledge of local systems to ensure patients were investigated promptly even when not meeting the age criteria. CONCLUSION: While most GPs interpret age criteria flexibly and follow their own judgement and experience when making clinical decisions regarding younger patients, system constraints may be a barrier to timely investigation.

Future cancer risk after urgent suspected cancer referral in England when cancer is not found: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Following referral for investigation of urgent suspected cancer within the English National Health Service referral system, 7% of referred individuals are diagnosed with cancer. This study aimed to investigate the risk of cancer occurrence within 1-5 years of finding no cancer following an urgent suspected cancer referral. METHODS: This national cohort study used urgent suspected cancer referral data for England from the Cancer Waiting Times dataset and linked it with cancer diagnosis data from the National Cancer Registration dataset. Data were extracted for the eight most commonly referred to urgent suspected cancer referral pathways (breast, gynaecological, head and neck, lower and upper gastrointestinal, lung, skin, and urological) for the period April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014, with 5-year follow-up for individuals with no cancer diagnosis within 1 year of referral. The primary objective was to investigate the occurrence and type of subsequent cancer in years 1-5 following an urgent suspected cancer referral when no cancer was initially found, both overall and for each of the eight referral pathways. The numbers of subsequent cancers were compared with expected cancer incidence in years 1-5 following referral, using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) based on matched age-gender distributions of expected cancer incidence in England for the same time period. The analysis was repeated, stratifying by referral group, and by calculating the absolute and expected rate of all cancers and of the same individual cancer as the initial referral. FINDINGS: Among 1·18 million referrals without a cancer diagnosis in years 0-1, there were 63 112 subsequent cancers diagnosed 1-5 years post-referral, giving an absolute rate of 1338 (95% CI 1327-1348) cancers per 100 000 referrals per year (1038 [1027-1050] in females, 1888 [1867-1909] in males), compared with an expected rate of 1054 (1045-1064) cancers per 100 000 referrals per year (SIR 1·27 [95% CI 1·26-1·28]). The absolute rate of any subsequent cancer diagnosis 1-5 years after referral was lowest following suspected breast cancer referral (746 [728-763] cancers per 100 000 referrals per year) and highest following suspected urological (2110 [2070-2150]) or lung cancer (1835 [1767-1906]) referral. For diagnosis of the same cancer as the initial referral pathway, the highest absolute rates were for the urological and lung pathways (1011 [984-1039] and 638 [598-680] cancers per 100 000 referrals per year, respectively). The highest relative risks of subsequent diagnosis of the same cancer as the initial referral pathway were for the head and neck pathway (SIR 3·49 [95% CI 3·22-3·78]) and lung pathway (3·00 [2·82-3·20]). INTERPRETATION: Cancer risk was higher than expected in the 5 years following an urgent suspected cancer referral. The potential for targeted interventions, such as proactive monitoring, safety-netting, and cancer awareness or risk reduction initiatives should be investigated. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Should we? Could we? Feasibility of interventions to support prevention or early diagnosis of future cancer following urgent referral: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the feasibility of giving additional support to patients after cancer is not found following urgent referral. We sought to understand key facilitators or barriers to offering such support. METHODS: A convenience sample of primary and secondary care healthcare professionals (n = 36) participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis, inductively and deductively, guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: HCPs indicated that support should be offered if proven to be efficacious. It needs to avoid potential negative consequences such as patient anxiety and information overload. HCPs were more hesitant about whether support could feasibly be offered, due to resource restrictions and perceived remit of the urgent pathway for suspected cancer. CONCLUSION: HCP support after discharge from urgent cancer referral pathways needs to be resource efficient, developed in collaboration with patients and should have proven efficacy. Development of brief interventions for delivery by a range of staff, and use of technology could mitigate barriers to implementation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Changes to discharge procedures to provide information, endorsement or direction to services could offer much needed support. Additional support would need to overcome logistical challenges and address limited capacity.

Talking about cancer: Patient responses to raising awareness of oral cancer in primary dental care.

OBJECTIVES: Dentists and other members of the dental team could raise awareness by talking about oral cancer during routine dental check-ups. A communication guide has been developed to facilitate this. However, it has been suggested that discussions about oral cancer may raise patients' anxiety and this has been documented by dentists as a barrier to having these conversations. The current research aimed to investigate implementation of the communication guide and its impact on the dental patient. METHODS: A consecutive-case sample of adult dental patients attending primary dental care for a routine NHS check-up at one dental practice were invited to take part in the study via letter prior to their appointment. Consultations of participating patients (n = 77) were audio-recorded. Before and after their appointment, patients were asked to rate their current anxiety via the six-item version of Spielberger's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Audio recordings of each consultation were reviewed by two raters to determine the extent to which the dentist covered the topics recommended in the communication guide. RESULTS: The dentist informed all patients that they were being checked for oral cancer, spoke about signs and symptoms, and discussed risk factors. However, they rarely recommended where help should be sought or addressed barriers to seeking help. Discussions took an average of 95 s. The extent to which oral cancer was discussed did not correlate with patients' post-appointment anxiety. Patients made positive or neutral responses to the discussions. The few questions that were asked were easily addressed. CONCLUSIONS: As findings are based on one dentist working at one practice, generalization of these results should be cautious. The study indicated that using an evidence-based guide to talk about oral cancer did not appear to raise patients' anxiety in this practice population. This could help to increase awareness of oral cancer in the endeavour to facilitate early cancer diagnosis.

Dentists' perspectives on denture provision after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: an exploratory study using the theoretical domains framework.

Introduction Patients are often keen to replace their missing teeth after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC), yet such replacement does not always take place.Aims This study aimed to investigate the influences on dentists' provision of dentures for patients treated with radiotherapy for HNC, including whether risk of osteoradionecrosis (ORN) is a factor influencing intention to provide dentures.Methods An online cross-sectional survey including a case scenario, self-reported behaviour and measures of factors (selected using the theoretical domains framework) that may affect dentists' decisions was completed by general dental practitioners (n = 150) and HNC multidisciplinary team dentists (n = 25) in England.Results Dentists' reluctance to provide dentures for HNC patients post-radiotherapy was often due to concerns about dry mouth and radiation caries rather than risk of ORN. Knowledge of guidelines and beliefs about consequences were independently associated with dentists' intention to replace missing teeth with dentures.Conclusion The likelihood of replacing missing teeth with dentures increased with awareness of clinical guidance on the use of dentures in HNC and that denture provision would have positive consequences that outweigh the costs.

"Whilst you are here " Acceptability of providing advice about screening and early detection of other cancers as part of the breast cancer screening programme.

OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to assess women's willingness to receive advice about cervical and bowel cancer screening participation and advice on cancer symptom awareness when attending breast cancer screening. METHODS: Women (n = 322) aged 60-64 years, living in the United Kingdom, who had previously taken part in breast cancer screening were recruited via a market research panel. They completed an online survey assessing willingness to receive advice, the potential impact of advice on breast screening participation, prospective acceptability and preferences for mode and timing of advice. RESULTS: Most women would be willing to receive information about cervical (86%) and bowel cancer screening (90%) and early symptoms of other cancers (92%) at a breast cancer screening appointment. Those who were not up to date with cervical cancer screening were less willing. Prospective acceptability was high for all three forms of advice and was associated with willingness to receive advice. Women would prefer to receive advice through a leaflet (41%) or discussion with the mammographer (30%) either before the appointment (27%), at the appointment (44%) or with their results (22%). CONCLUSIONS: While there is high willingness and high acceptability towards using breast cancer screening as a teachable moment for advice about prevention and early detection of other cancers, some women find it unacceptable and this may reduce their likelihood of attending a breast screening appointment. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study focused on gaining women's insights into potential future initiatives to encourage screening and early diagnosis of cancer. Members of the public were also involved in piloting the questionnaire.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer assessment in primary care: a qualitative study of GP views.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis is key to improve cancer outcomes, and most cancers are diagnosed in primary care after initial symptomatic presentation. Emerging evidence suggests an increase in avoidable cancer deaths owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. AIM: To understand GPs' views on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical assessment of possible cancer. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative semi-structured interview study with GPs from the East of England. METHOD: GPs were purposively sampled based on age, sex, and years of experience. Interviews were conducted via Zoom or Microsoft Teams in August and September 2020. Transcribed recordings were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. The Model of Pathways to Treatment guided the analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified across 23 interviews on GP views on the impact of: (1) changes in patient help-seeking behaviour on symptoms at presentation; (2) remote consultations on managing patients with possible cancer symptoms; and (3) the COVID-19 pandemic on triaging and referring patients with possible cancer. There were positive changes to practice, but concerns were raised about the adequacy of remote consultations for assessing symptoms. Some GPs reported delayed cancer diagnoses, and uncertainty about how backlog in referrals would be managed. CONCLUSION: This study provides new evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on assessing symptomatic patients. Recommendations are made to inform safe and effective primary care clinical practice. Urgent action is needed to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and ensure appropriate symptomatic assessment now and in the future.

Knowledge of cervical cancer risk factors and symptoms among women in a refugee settlement: a cross-sectional study in northern Uganda.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on awareness of cervical cancer risk factors and symptoms among refugee populations living in Uganda. In this study, we sought to determine the awareness and knowledge of cervical cancer risk factors and symptoms among women in Palabek refugee settlement, northern Uganda. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study. 815 women (aged 18-60 years) were randomly selected using multistage sampling in Palabek refugee settlement. Data were collected using pre-tested, structured questionnaires. Logistic regression models were used to determine magnitudes of association between socio-demographic and health system factors, and knowledge on cervical cancer risk factors and symptoms. RESULTS: The majority of participants (53%, n = 433) were young (18-29 years), married (68%, n = 553), and did not have formal employment (93%, n = 759). Less than half (40%, n = 325) had heard of cervical cancer. Of those who had heard, most recognized multiple male sexual partners, early onset of sexual intercourse and HPV infections as risk factors for cervical cancer (93%, n = 295; 89%, n = 283; and 86%, n = 271 respectively). Median knowledge score for risk factor recognition = 7 (IQR: 3-9). Median knowledge score for symptoms recognition = 7 (IQR: 1-10). Half of women (50%, n = 409) correctly recognized 7 to 11 symptoms of cervical cancer, with vaginal bleeding between menstrual periods, pelvic pain, and vaginal bleeding during/after sexual intercourse recognized by 58, 52 and 54% respectively. Single women (OR = 0.59 (95%CI: 0.38-0.94), and women that lived farther than 1 kilo meter from nearest health facility in South Sudan (OR = 0.36-0.49 (95%CI: 0.26-0.84) were less likely to be knowledgeable of symptoms of cervical cancer. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of women in Palabek refugee settlement had not heard about cervical cancer. Refugee health services providers could increase awareness of cervical cancer risk factors and symptoms through health education in order to promote risk reduction behaviours and guide women during symptoms appraisal. Single women and those who lived more than one kilo metre from nearest health facility in home country could be a priority group for awareness intervention in the settlement.

Women's appraisal, interpretation and help-seeking for possible symptoms of breast and cervical cancer in South Africa: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In South Africa, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and cervical cancer the leading cause of cancer mortality. Most cancers are diagnosed at a late-stage and following symptomatic presentation. The overall purpose of the study was to inform interventions aimed at improving timely diagnosis of breast and cervical cancer. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with women with potential breast or cervical cancer symptoms from urban and rural South Africa. Participants were recruited from a community-based cross-sectional study on breast and cervical cancer awareness. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Eighteen women were interviewed (10 urban, 8 rural): the median age was 34.5 years (range 22-58). Most were unemployed, and five were HIV positive. Themes included impact and attribution of bodily changes; influence of social networks and health messaging in help-seeking; management of symptoms and help-seeking barriers. Breast changes were often attributed to manual activities or possible cancer. Women were often unsure how to interpret vaginal symptoms, attributing them to HIV, hormonal contraceptives, or partner infidelity. Concerns about cancer were based on health information from the radio, social networks, or from primary care providers. Prompt care seeking was triggered by impact of symptoms on personal lives. Rural women, especially with possible symptoms of cervical cancer, experienced challenges during help-seeking including judgmental attitudes of clinic staff. Most participants were skeptical of traditional medicine. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study exploring interpretation of possible breast and cervical cancer symptoms at a community level in South Africa. The process of interpreting bodily changes, symptom attribution and help-seeking is complex and influenced by women's everyday life experiences. Timely diagnosis interventions should not only include cancer symptom awareness but also address individual, structural and health systems related barriers to care.

Use of dentures, receipt of information, quality of life, and oral function following radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Teeth with a poor prognosis are often extracted prior to radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC) in order to help prevent the need for dental treatment after radiotherapy that might in turn lead to the development of osteoradionecrosis. However, the details and impact of replacing missing teeth after radiotherapy for HNC have received little attention, especially from the patients' perspective. AIMS: This study aimed to assess the use, satisfaction, and impact of denture use following radiotherapy for HNC. The study also sought to determine patients' satisfaction with information about replacing their missing teeth postradiotherapy. Finally, this study also aimed to assess interest in replacing missing teeth for those who had not done so. METHODS: A structured, validated, and reliable questionnaire was sent to HNC patients who had received radiotherapy and had missing teeth at the time of discharge. In addition to demographic details and self-reported oral hygiene, the questionnaire included questions on use of (or interest in) dentures, satisfaction with dentures, satisfaction with information about replacing missing teeth, QoL as measured by two questions from the short version of WHOQoL-BREF, and oral functioning as measured by BCSQ-H&N. Demographic details and clinical details were extracted from the hospital records. RESULTS: N = 80 (24%) returned a completed questionnaire. Participants had an average of 12 missing teeth (SD = 8.05). Most (n = 60, 75%) had not replaced their missing teeth. Of these, 35 (58%) were very or extremely interested in doing so. For HNC survivors who wore dentures, there was variable satisfaction and a number of side-effects of wearing dentures. Satisfaction with information about replacing missing teeth was low. There was no statistical difference in QoL or oral functioning between participants who wore dentures and participants who did not wear dentures. However, those with dentures reported fewer problems with carrying out daily routines as measured by the oral functioning tool. CONCLUSIONS: QoL and oral functioning were similar regardless of denture use, highlighting reduced oral function in both those with and without dentures. In those who had not replaced their missing teeth, there was substantial interest in doing so and thus may be an unmet need. The dental team could offer HNC survivors more support after radiotherapy and following denture provision to improve information about denture use and increase satisfaction with dentures.

Denture use and dental risk factors associated developing osteoradionecrosis after head and neck radiotherapy: A retrospective analysis of hospital records.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the association between denture use and occurrence of osteoradionecrosis (ORN) following radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of 439 HNC patients treated with radiotherapy at Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (London, UK) (2014-2019) who had missing teeth at the time of discharge were reviewed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the participant characteristics and outcome measures. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with occurrence of ORN. RESULTS: Patients had an average of 14 missing teeth and 39 % wore dentures. Twenty-two (5 %) developed ORN. Out of 22 who developed ORN, 11 (50 %) wore dentures. Of these, 5 patients developed ORN in areas contacted by dentures. Denture use was not significantly associated with the occurrence of ORN (OR = 1.94; 95%CI = 0.79-4.81; p-value = 0.150). Longer duration of radiotherapy (OR =1.03; 95%CI = 1.00-1.06; p-value= 0.048) and more missing teeth in the lower anterior area (OR = 1.11; 95%CI = 1.01-1.22; p-value = 0.024) were significantly associated with the development of ORN. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this single-centre study in which few patients developed ORN, denture use may not be a risk factor for ORN following radiotherapy for HNC. This is likely to be the case if dentures are well-fitting and not causing sores or irritation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Replacement of the missing teeth with dentures in HNC patients post-radiotherapy may be a suitable choice for many HNC survivors. However, a powered study in a large cohort that includes clinical evaluation of dentures and the quality of fit alongside denture wearing experience would be useful to further assess the impact of denture use on the development of ORN.

Denture use and osteoradionecrosis following radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is strongly recommended to extract teeth with poor prognosis in head and neck cancer (HaNC) patients prior starting treatment with radiotherapy to avoid need for extraction post-radiotherapy and prevent development of osteoradionecrosis (ORN). Dental extraction means that patients are often left with insufficient teeth leading to psychological problems and reducing their quality of life post-radiotherapy. Some clinicians do not advocate the use of dentures in HaNC patients claiming that dentures might lead to soft tissue irritation followed by ORN when constructed on irradiated jaws. AIMS: This systematic review aimed to investigate the existing evidence regarding the impact of denture use on the development of ORN in HaNC patients post-radiotherapy. METHODS: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Three database systems were used: Ovid Medline, EMBASE and PsycINFO. PROSPERO was searched for ongoing or recently completed systematic reviews. The https://ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for ongoing or recently completed trials. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were used to assess quality of studies being reviewed. RESULTS: Only three retrospective case-control studies were included. Numbers of participants included in the three studies are limited with incomparable types of mucosal dentures. None of the studies described the method of measurement of the exposure (denture use) in a standard, validated and reliable way. CONCLUSION: The three included studies suggested no link between denture use and development of ORN. However, very little evidence exists and the robustness of the studies is questionable. Well-powered studies are needed.

Missed opportunities for diagnosing brain tumours in primary care: a qualitative study of patient experiences.

BACKGROUND: Brain tumours are uncommon, and have extremely poor outcomes. Patients and GPs may find it difficult to recognise early symptoms because they are often non-specific and more likely due to other conditions. AIM: To explore patients' experiences of symptom appraisal, help seeking, and routes to diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study set in the East and North West of England. METHOD: In-depth interviews with adult patients recently diagnosed with a primary brain tumour and their family members were analysed thematically, using the Model of Pathways to Treatment as a conceptual framework. RESULTS: Interviews were carried out with 39 patients. Few participants (n = 7; 18%) presented as an emergency without having had a previous GP consultation; most had had one (n = 15; 38%), two (n = 9; 23%), or more (n = 8; 21%) GP consultations. Participants experienced multiple subtle 'changes' rather than 'symptoms', often noticed by others rather than the patient, which frequently led to loss of interest or less ability to engage with daily living activities. The most common changes were in cognition (speaking, writing, comprehension, memory, concentration, and multitasking), sleep, and other 'head feelings' such as dizziness. Not all patients experienced a seizure, and few seizures were experienced 'out of the blue'. Quality of communication in GP consultations played a key role in patients' subsequent symptom appraisal and the timing of their decision to re-consult. CONCLUSION: Multiple subtle changes and frequent GP visits often precede brain tumour diagnosis, giving possible diagnostic opportunities for GPs. Refined community symptom awareness and GP guidance could enable more direct pathways to diagnosis, and potentially improve patient experiences and outcomes.

Do cognitive heuristics underpin symptom appraisal for symptoms of cancer?: A secondary qualitative analysis across seven cancers.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the evidence for cognitive heuristics or "rules of thumb" used within patients' reports of symptom appraisal and decisions to seek help for symptoms of cancer. METHODS: A secondary analysis of interviews from existing studies that explored symptom appraisal in patients who had sought help for potential symptoms of cancer. Transcripts from n = 50 in-depth interviews with patients referred with symptoms suspicious of cancer (pancreas, colorectal, oral, lung, melanoma, breast, and prostate) were re-analysed using a deductive thematic approach underpinned by the heuristics outlined in the Common Sense Model of Illness Self-regulation as set within the Model of Pathways to Treatment. RESULTS: The most dominant heuristic in patient reports was the Rate of change rule (ie, symptoms that are worsening, increasing, or have a sudden onset [rather than improving, stable or decreasing in number] are more likely to indicate illness). There was also support for the Duration rule, Pattern rule, Chronology rule, Severity (of interference) rule, Age-illness rule, Novelty rule, Similarity rule, Location rule, and Optimistic bias rule. There was a lack of evidence for the Prevalence and Stress-illness rules. CONCLUSIONS: People do appear to use heuristics to guide their appraisal of symptoms and their perceived need for healthcare. Heuristics may be an important aspect underlying symptom misinterpretation, thus making them key targets for interventions. For instance, campaigns could tackle cognitive biases rather than focusing on specific symptom awareness. Myth-busting messages could highlight that intermittent, mild symptoms, and symptoms that are not worsening can be signs of a serious health problem.

'It was nothing that you would think was anything': Qualitative analysis of appraisal and help seeking preceding brain cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The patient's interpretation of the events and decisions leading up to consultation with a healthcare professional for symptoms of brain cancer is under researched. The aim of this study was to document responses to noticing the changes preceding a diagnosis of brain cancer and living with them, focusing on appraisal of changes and the decision to seek (and re-seek) help, with attention to the psychological processes underpinning the appraisal and help-seeking intervals. METHOD: In this qualitative study set in Eastern and NW England, in-depth interviews with adult patients recently diagnosed with primary brain cancer and their family members were analysed thematically, using the Model of Pathways to Treatment as a conceptual framework. RESULTS: 39 adult patients were interviewed. Regarding the appraisal interval, cognitive heuristics were found to underpin explanations of changes/symptoms. The subtlety and normality of changes often suggested nothing serious was wrong. Common explanations included stress or being busy at work, or age and these did not seem to warrant a visit to a doctor. Explanations and the decision to seek help were made within the social context, with friends, family and work colleagues contributing to appraisal and help-seeking decisions. Regarding the help-seeking interval, barriers to seeking help reflected components of Social Cognitive Theory, and included having other priorities, outcome expectations (e.g. 'feeling silly', not sure much can be done about it, not wanting to waste doctors' time) and accessibility of a preferred healthcare professional. CONCLUSION: Application of psychological theory facilitated understanding of the influences on cognition and behaviour. The study highlights implications for theory, awareness campaigns and potential opportunities promoting more timely help-seeking.

The Aarhus statement on cancer diagnostic research: turning recommendations into new survey instruments.

BACKGROUND: Over recent years there has been a growth in cancer early diagnosis (ED) research, which requires valid measurement of routes to diagnosis and diagnostic intervals. The Aarhus Statement, published in 2012, provided methodological guidance to generate valid data on these key pre-diagnostic measures. However, there is still a wide variety of measuring instruments of varying quality in published research. In this paper we test comprehension of self-completion ED questionnaire items, based on Aarhus Statement guidance, and seek input from patients, GPs and ED researchers to refine these questions. METHODS: We used personal interviews and consensus approaches to generate draft ED questionnaire items, then a combination of focus groups and telephone interviews to test comprehension and obtain feedback. A framework analysis approach was used, to identify themes and potential refinements to the items. RESULTS: We found that many of the questionnaire items still prompted uncertainty in respondents, in both routes to diagnosis and diagnostic interval measurement. Uncertainty was greatest in the context of multiple or vague symptoms, and potentially ambiguous time-points (such as 'date of referral'). CONCLUSIONS: There are limits on the validity of self-completion questionnaire responses, and refinements to the wording of questions may not be able to completely overcome these limitations. It's important that ED researchers use the best identifiable measuring instruments, but accommodate inevitable uncertainty in the interpretation of their results. Every effort should be made to increase clarity of questions and responses, and use of two or more data sources should be considered.

Low cancer suspicion following experience of a cancer 'warning sign'.

AIM: Lower socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with a higher risk of late-stage cancer diagnosis. A number of explanations have been advanced for this, but one which has attracted recent attention is lower patient knowledge of cancer warning signs, leading to delay in help-seeking. However, although there is psychometric evidence of SES differences in knowledge of cancer symptoms, no studies have examined differences in 'cancer suspicion' among people who are actually experiencing a classic warning sign. METHODS: A 'health survey' was mailed to 9771 adults (⩾50years, no cancer diagnosis) with a symptom list including 10 cancer 'warning signs'. Respondents were asked if they had experienced any of the symptoms in the past 3months, and if so, were asked 'what do you think caused it?' Any mention of cancer was scored as 'cancer suspicion'. SES was indexed by education. RESULTS: Nearly half the respondents (1732/3756) had experienced a 'warning sign', but only 63/1732 (3.6%) mentioned cancer as a possible cause. Lower education was associated with lower likelihood of cancer suspicion: 2.6% of respondents with school-only education versus 7.3% with university education suspected cancer as a possible cause. In multivariable analysis, low education was the only demographic variable independently associated with lower cancer suspicion (odds ratio (OR)=0.34, confidence interval (CI): 0.20-0.59). CONCLUSION: Levels of cancer suspicion were low overall in this community sample, and even lower in people from less educated backgrounds. This may hinder early symptomatic presentation and contribute to inequalities in stage at diagnosis.