A qualitative exploration of women's perspectives and acceptability of including new cancer awareness information in all-clear breast or cervical screening results.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored women's perspectives on the acceptability of including new cancer information with an all-clear breast or cervical screening result letter (using ovarian cancer as a case study). METHODS: In 2016, six focus group discussions were conducted with women aged 25-70 years old, eligible for invitation to the NHS breast or cervical screening programme and resident in England. The focus groups lasted 60-90 min and were held in community venues. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-eight women aged 25-67 years old participated in the focus groups. Data analysis yielded six descriptive themes: general cancer awareness, taking advantage of a 'teachable moment', a double-edge sword, barriers to accepting and using new cancer information, motivators for accepting and using new cancer information and wider strategies to increase cancer awareness in women. Women welcomed the inclusion of new cancer information in all-clear screening results but highlighted pertinent lessons to be considered to maximise the usefulness of the approach. CONCLUSION: While women perceived this approach as acceptable, it is pertinent to note the potential of the new cancer information to stimulate anxiety and potentially widen inequalities by excluding non-attenders at screening programmes. Specific complementary and tailored approaches are necessary to mitigate these limitations.

Rapid review of factors associated with flexible sigmoidoscopy screening use.

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening has been shown to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality among screened adults. The aim of this review was to identify patient-related factors associated with the screening test's use. We searched PubMed for studies that examined the association between FS screening use and one or more factors. To determine the eligibility of studies, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search, which we expanded successively (by adding 'OR' terms) until the number of new publications eligible after abstract review was <1% of the total number of publications. We then abstracted factors from eligible papers and reported the number of times each was found to be positively or negatively associated with FS screening use. We identified 42 papers, most of which reported studies conducted in the United States of America (n = 21, 50%) and the United Kingdom (n = 13, 31%). Across studies, a wide range of factors were examined (n = 123), almost half of which were found to be associated with FS screening use at least once (n = 60). Sociodemographic and health and lifestyle factors that were frequently positively associated with FS screening use included: male gender, higher socioeconomic status and a family history of CRC. Frequently positively associated psychosocial factors included low perceived barriers and high perceived benefits. Findings suggest that future research should focus on developing a theoretical framework of cancer screening behaviour to allow a greater level of consistency and specificity in measuring key constructs.

GPs' perceptions and experiences of public awareness campaigns for cancer: a qualitative enquiry.

BACKGROUND: Public awareness campaigns for cancer are used to alert the UK population to symptoms which, if experienced, should be discussed with their general practitioner (GP). More timely diagnosis of cancer is assumed possible if patients with the appropriate symptoms present to GPs and GPs recognise the need to act on these symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To investigate GPs' perceptions and experiences of public awareness campaigns for cancer. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 55 GPs from practices in the North and North East of England and Greater London. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Repeated reading of GP transcripts engendered thematic analysis and co-coding ensured legitimacy of findings. RESULTS: Participants supported the underpinning ethos of public health campaigns and articulated a commitment to engaging with patients with respect to cancer warning signs and symptoms despite the common perception that public awareness campaigns increased numbers of consultations. Tensions were evident with regard to increased demands on GP time and primary care resources during a period of major upheaval within the NHS. Concern was raised that some patients remain outwith the reach of campaign messages. The complexity of addressing how public health messages compete with other issues in people's lives was identified as challenging. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners provided insight into why some members of the general public do not engage with public health messages. Public health/primary care interaction that incorporates GPs' knowledge of their patient populations could advance the search for solutions to a more robust approach to earlier cancer recognition and referral in primary care.

Exploring GPs' experiences of using diagnostic tools for cancer: a qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The UK has an estimated 5-10000 extra cancer deaths each year when compared to other European countries and diagnostic delays are thought to make a significant contribution to this. One of the initiatives in England intended to support primary care professionals has been the development of cancer risk assessment tools (RATs). These tools assist in identifying and quantifying the risk of cancer in symptomatic primary care patients. OBJECTIVE: To explore GPs' experiences of incorporating the RATs for lung and bowel cancers into their clinical practice and in so doing, identify constraints and facilitators to the wider dissemination of the tools in primary care. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews over the telephone with 11 project managers who implemented the study and 23 GPs who used the tool. The interviews were digitally recorded, professionally transcribed verbatim and analysed through the construction of a 'thematic framework'. RESULTS: The training and support package was fundamental to the successful integration of the RATs into GPs' daily routines. Ongoing support from cancer networks alongside acknowledgement of the clinical expertize of the GPs by those implementing the study enhanced GPs' uptake of the tool in practice. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that the embedding of clinical decision support tools into clinical practice is more likely to be achieved when they are perceived to support but not supersede the clinical judgement of their users. This element of our findings is a focal point of this article.

Non-attendance at urgent referral appointments for suspected cancer: a qualitative study to gain understanding from patients and GPs.

BACKGROUND: The 2-week-wait urgent referral policy in the UK has sought to improve cancer outcomes by accelerating diagnosis and treatment. However, around 5-7% of symptomatic referred patients cancel or do not attend their hospital appointment. While subsequent cancer diagnosis was less likely in non-attenders, those with a diagnosis had worse early mortality outcomes. AIM: To examine how interpersonal, communication, social, and organisational factors influence a patient's non-attendance. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study in GP practices in one Northern English city. METHOD: In-depth, individual interviews were undertaken face-to-face or by telephone between December 2016 and May 2018, followed by thematic framework analysis. RESULTS: In this study 21 GPs, and 24 patients who did not attend or had cancelled their appointment were interviewed, deriving a range of potential explanations for non-attendance, including: system flaws; GP difficulties with booking appointments; patient difficulties with navigating the appointment system, particularly older patients and those from more deprived areas; patients leading 'difficult lives'; and patients' expectations of the referral, informed by their beliefs, circumstances, priorities, and the perceived prognosis. GPs recognised the importance of communication with the patient, particularly the need to tailor communication to perceived patient understanding and anxiety. GPs and practices varied in their responses to patient non-attendance, influenced by time pressures and perceptions of patient responsibility. CONCLUSION: Failure to be seen within 2 weeks of urgent referral resulted from a number of patient and provider factors. The urgent referral process in general practice and cancer services should accommodate patient perceptions and responses, facilitate referral and attendance, and enable responses to patient non-attendance.

Non-attendance at urgent referral appointments for suspected cancer: a qualitative study to gain understanding from patients and GPs.

BACKGROUND: The 2-week-wait urgent referral policy in the UK has sought to improve cancer outcomes by accelerating diagnosis and treatment. However, around 5-7% of symptomatic referred patients cancel or do not attend their hospital appointment. While subsequent cancer diagnosis was less likely in non-attenders, those with a diagnosis had worse early mortality outcomes. AIM: To examine how interpersonal, communication, social, and organisational factors influence a patient's non-attendance. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study in GP practices in one Northern English city. METHOD: In-depth, individual interviews were undertaken face-to-face or by telephone between December 2016 and May 2018, followed by thematic framework analysis. RESULTS: In this study 21 GPs, and 24 patients who did not attend or had cancelled their appointment were interviewed, deriving a range of potential explanations for non-attendance, including: system flaws; GP difficulties with booking appointments; patient difficulties with navigating the appointment system, particularly older patients and those from more deprived areas; patients leading 'difficult lives'; and patients' expectations of the referral, informed by their beliefs, circumstances, priorities, and the perceived prognosis. GPs recognised the importance of communication with the patient, particularly the need to tailor communication to perceived patient understanding and anxiety. GPs and practices varied in their responses to patient non-attendance, influenced by time pressures and perceptions of patient responsibility. CONCLUSION: Failure to be seen within 2 weeks of urgent referral resulted from a number of patient and provider factors. The urgent referral process in general practice and cancer services should accommodate patient perceptions and responses, facilitate referral and attendance, and enable responses to patient non-attendance.

Patient non-attendance at urgent referral appointments for suspected cancer and its links to cancer diagnosis and one year mortality: A cohort study of patients referred on the Two Week Wait pathway.

BACKGROUND: The 'Two Week Wait' policy aims to ensure patients with suspected cancer are seen within two weeks of referral. However, patient non-attendance can result in this target being missed. This study aimed to identify predictors of non-attendance; and analyse the relationship between attendance and outcomes including cancer diagnosis and early mortality. METHODS: A cohort study of 109,433 adults registered at 105 general practices, referred to a cancer centre within a large NHS hospital trust (April 2009 to December 2016) on the 'Two Week Wait' pathway. RESULTS: 5673 (5.2%) patients did not attend. Non-attendance was largely predicted by patient factors (younger and older age, male gender, greater deprivation, suspected cancer site, earlier year of referral, greater distance to the hospital) over practice factors (greater deprivation, lower Quality and Outcomes Framework score, lower cancer conversion rate, lower cancer detection rate). 10,360 (9.6%) patients were diagnosed with cancer within six months of referral (9.8% attending patients, 5.6% non-attending patients). Among these patients, 2029 (19.6%) died within 12 months of diagnosis: early mortality risk was 31.3% in non-attenders and 19.2% in attending patients. CONCLUSIONS: Non-attendance at urgent referral appointments for suspected cancer involves a minority of patients but happens in predictable groups. Cancer diagnosis was less likely in non-attending patients but these patients had worse early mortality outcomes than attending patients. The study findings have implications for cancer services and policy.

Using primary care-based paper and telephone interventions to increase uptake of bowel scope screening in Yorkshire: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests bowel scope screening (BSS) can significantly reduce an individual's risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). BSS for 55 year olds was therefore introduced to the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in 2013. However, the benefits are only gained from test completion and uptake is low (43%). Primary care involvement has consistently shown benefits to cancer screening uptake and so this study aims to build on this knowledge and evaluate general practitioner (GP) practice led interventions designed to increase BSS attendance. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A three-arm randomised controlled trial will be conducted to evaluate three interventions: one intervention for prospective BSS invitees (primer letter with locally tailored leaflet sent by an individual's GP practice) and two interventions for those who do not attend their BSS appointment (a self-referral letter sent by an individual's GP practice and a patient navigation call made on behalf of an individual's GP practice). The trial will be set in Yorkshire. Individuals soon to receive their invitation to attend BSS at one of the Hull and East Yorkshire Bowel Cancer Screening centre sites, will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: control (usual care; no input from GP practice), Intervention group A (primer letter/leaflet and a self-referral letter), Intervention group B (primer letter/leaflet and a patient navigation call). Attendance data will be obtained from the BCSP database (via National Health Service (NHS) Digital) 3 months after the last intervention. Regression analysis will compare uptake, and additional clinical outcomes, across the three groups. The analysis will be multivariate and adjust for several covariates including gender and area-level deprivation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: NHS ethical approval has been obtained from London-Harrow Research Ethics Committee. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16252122; Pre-results.

Attitudes of newly qualified doctors towards a career in general practice: a qualitative focus group study.

BACKGROUND: A key element of the NHS is universal access to a GP. Recently, UK general practice has been described as being in crisis, with training places unfilled and multiple practices reporting vacancies or facing closure. The recruitment of GPs continues to be a key focus for both the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and the government. AIM: To understand the attitudes of newly qualified doctors towards a career in general practice, to appreciate potential reasons for the crisis in GP recruitment, and to recommend ways to improve recruitment. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study comprising five focus groups with 74 Foundation Year 1 (FY1) doctors from one Yorkshire deanery. METHOD: Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis undertaken. RESULTS: Foundation Year 1 doctors' thoughts towards a career in general practice were summarised in four themes: quality of life, job satisfaction, uncertainty surrounding the future of general practice, and the lack of respect for GPs among both doctors and the public. Participants felt that general practice could provide a good work-life balance, fair pay, and job stability. Job satisfaction, with the ability to provide care from the cradle to the grave, and to work within a community, was viewed positively. Uncertainties around future training, skill levels, pay, and workload, together with a perceived stigma experienced in medical schools and hospitals, were viewed as a deterrent to a career in general practice. CONCLUSION: This study has gathered the opinions of doctors at a critical point in their careers, before they choose a future specialty. Findings highlight areas of concern and potential deterrents to a career in general practice, together with recommendations to address these issues.

Embedding electronic decision-support tools for suspected cancer in primary care: a qualitative study of GPs' experiences.

AIM: The purpose of this evaluation was to obtain views from general practitioners (GPs) who piloted the electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) for suspected lung or colorectal cancer. We wanted to find out whether GPs were able to integrate these tools into their everyday practice. We were also keen to identify facilitators and barriers to their more widespread use. BACKGROUND: Cancer remains one of UK's biggest health problems, in terms of morbidity and mortality. Comparative European data show that five-year survival figures for many cancers are lower in the United Kingdom than in comparable European countries. eRATs are intended to aid recognition of symptoms of lung and colorectal cancers in patients aged 40 years and over. METHODS: This was a qualitative study; telephone interviews were conducted with 23 GPs who piloted the eRATs. A systematic qualitative analysis was applied to the data. The normalisation process model was used after data collection. This theory-driven conceptual framework was used to examine the operationalisation of this intervention in Primary Care. FINDINGS: Electronic decision-support tools appear to be useful additions to the resources available to GPs in order to assist them with recognizing potential cancer symptoms. However, the tools need to be refined in order to integrate them into GP practice. The tools raised GPs' awareness about cancer because of the prompt facility of the software, although this also raised the potential of 'prompt fatigue'. GPs constantly receive alerts via their clinical system, particularly related to the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The integration of eRATs into routine practice could be engendered by improvement to the training packages that accompany them, and by its delivery via a platform compatible with all GP clinical systems.

Evaluation of risk assessment tools for suspected cancer in general practice: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic delay is deemed to account for an estimated 5000 to 10 000 extra cancer deaths each year in the UK. Many cancer patients do not have symptoms meeting national referral criteria for rapid investigation. Risk assessment tools (RATs) have been developed to assist GPs in selecting patient for cancer investigation. AIM: To assess the usability and acceptability of lung and colorectal RATs, as well as subsequent resource use and cancer diagnoses. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study with nested qualitative study with 614 GPs from 165 practices in seven English cancer networks were provided with RATs applicable to patients aged ≥40 years with bowel or respiratory symptoms. In-depth interviews were conducted with 34 individuals (11 project managers and 23 GPs). METHOD: The study measured the number of RATs used, and subsequent cancer investigations and diagnoses, over a 6-month period and compared these with the previous 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 2593 RATs (1160 lung, 1433 colorectal) were completed. Compared with the preceding 6 months, there were 292 more chest X-rays, 104 extra 2-week chest clinic appointments, and 47 additional diagnoses of lung cancer. For suspected colorectal cancer, there were 304 more 2-week referrals, 270 more colonoscopies, and 10 more cancers identified. RATs appeared to help GPs in their selection of patients for cancer investigation. Users reported that RATs helped to confirm a need for investigation as well as allowing reassurance when investigation was not needed. CONCLUSION: Use of RATs in primary care was accompanied by increased diagnostic activity and additional cancer diagnoses.