Gender inequalities across ethnicities in primary care cancer referrals: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Early cancer diagnosis is associated with improved mortality and morbidity; however, studies indicate that women and individuals from ethnic minorities experience longer times to diagnosis and worse prognosis compared with their counterparts for various cancers. In countries with a gatekeeper healthcare system, such as the UK, most suspected cancer referrals are initiated in primary care. AIM: To understand the extent of evidence available on the relationship between primary care cancer referral pathways and cancer outcomes in relation to gender across different ethnic groups. This will identify research gaps and enable development of strategies to ease potential inequalities in cancer diagnosis. DESIGN & SETTING: A scoping review of articles written in English, based on the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will be used. METHOD: Electronic databases and private collections of the team members will be searched for studies. Two independent reviewers will carry out the study selection and data extraction. Based on Population (or participants), Concept, and Context (PCC) framework, this review will consider studies after year 2000, which explored the relationship between gender, across various ethnic groups, and cancer outcomes, following primary care cancer referral in countries with gatekeeper healthcare systems (UK, New Zealand, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Republic of Ireland, and Norway). Results will be presented as a narrative analysis. CONCLUSION: The results are expected to provide an overview of the discrepancies in primary care cancer referrals based on gender across ethnic groups, which will be crucial to define an appropriate range of strategies to ease any inequalities in primary healthcare cancer diagnosis.

Factors leading to disparity in lung cancer diagnosis among black/African American communities in the USA: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This study has two objectives: first, to explore the diagnostic experiences of black/African American (BAA) patients with lung cancer to pinpoint pitfalls, suboptimal experiences and instances of discrimination leading to disparities in outcomes compared with patients of other ethnic backgrounds, especially white patients. The second objective is to identify the underlying causes contributing to health disparities in the diagnosis of lung cancer among BAA patients. METHODS: We employed a phenomenological research approach, guiding in-depth interviews with patients self-identifying as BAA diagnosed with lung cancer, as well as caregivers, healthcare professionals and community advocates knowledgeable about BAA experiences with lung cancer. We performed thematic analysis to identify experiences at patient, primary care and specialist levels. Contributing factors were identified using the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) health disparity model. RESULTS: From March to November 2021, we conducted individual interviews with 19 participants, including 9 patients/caregivers and 10 providers/advocates. Participants reported recurring and increased pain before seeking treatment, treatment for non-cancer illnesses, delays in diagnostic tests and referrals, poor communication and bias when dealing with specialists and primary care providers. Factors contributing to suboptimal experiences included reluctance by insurers to cover costs, provider unwillingness to conduct comprehensive testing, provider bias in recommending treatment, high healthcare costs, and lack of healthcare facilities and qualified staff to provide necessary support. However, some participants reported positive experiences due to their insurance, availability of services and having an empowered support structure. CONCLUSIONS: BAA patients and caregivers encountered suboptimal experiences during their care. The NIMHD model is a useful framework to organise factors contributing to these experiences that may be leading to health disparities. Additional research is needed to fully capture the extent of these experiences and identify ways to improve BAA patient experiences in the lung cancer diagnosis pathway.

Assessing Ethnic Inequalities in Diagnostic Interval of Common Cancers: A Population-Based UK Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated ethnic differences in diagnostic interval (DI)-the period between initial primary care presentation and diagnosis. METHODS: We analysed the primary care-linked data of patients who reported features of seven cancers (breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, oesophagogastric, myeloma, and ovarian) one year before diagnosis. Accelerated failure time (AFT) models investigated the association between DI and ethnicity, adjusting for age, sex, deprivation, and morbidity. RESULTS: Of 126,627 eligible participants, 92.1% were White, 1.99% Black, 1.71% Asian, 1.83% Mixed, and 2.36% were of Other ethnic backgrounds. Considering all cancer sites combined, the median (interquartile range) DI was 55 (20-175) days, longest in lung [127, (42-265) days], and shortest in breast cancer [13 (13, 8-18) days]. DI for the Black and Asian groups was 10% (AFT ratio, 95%CI 1.10, 1.05-1.14) and 16% (1.16, 1.10-1.22), respectively, longer than for the White group. Site-specific analyses revealed evidence of longer DI in Asian and Black patients with prostate, colorectal, and oesophagogastric cancer, plus Black patients with breast cancer and myeloma, and the Mixed group with lung cancer compared with White patients. DI was shorter for the Other group with lung, prostate, myeloma, and oesophagogastric cancer than the White group. CONCLUSION: We found limited and inconsistent evidence of ethnic differences in DI among patients who reported cancer features in primary care before diagnosis. Our findings suggest that inequalities in diagnostic intervals, where present, are unlikely to be the sole explanation for ethnic variations in cancer outcomes.

Ethnic inequalities in routes to diagnosis of cancer: a population-based UK cohort study.

BACKGROUND: UK Asian and Black ethnic groups have poorer outcomes for some cancers and are less likely to report a positive care experience than their White counterparts. This study investigated ethnic differences in the route to diagnosis (RTD) to identify areas in patients' cancer journeys where inequalities lie, and targeted intervention might have optimum impact. METHODS: We analysed data of 243,825 patients with 10 cancers (2006-2016) from the RTD project linked to primary care data. Crude and adjusted proportions of patients diagnosed via six routes (emergency, elective GP referral, two-week wait (2WW), screen-detected, hospital, and Other routes) were calculated by ethnicity. Adjusted odds ratios (including two-way interactions between cancer and age, sex, IMD, and ethnicity) determined cancer-specific differences in RTD by ethnicity. RESULTS: Across the 10 cancers studied, most patients were diagnosed via 2WW (36.4%), elective GP referral (23.2%), emergency (18.2%), hospital routes (10.3%), and screening (8.61%). Patients of Other ethnic group had the highest proportion of diagnosis via the emergency route, followed by White patients. Asian and Black group were more likely to be GP-referred, with the Black and Mixed groups also more likely to follow the 2WW route. However, there were notable cancer-specific differences in the RTD by ethnicity. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that, where inequalities exist, the adverse cancer outcomes among Asian and Black patients are unlikely to be arising solely from a poorer diagnostic process.

Primary care use by men with symptoms of possible prostate cancer: A multi-method study with an ethnically diverse sample in London.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate primary care use by men with recent onset of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) to identify differences in presentation and investigation that may explain ethnic inequality in prostate cancer outcomes. METHODS: This is a multi-method study of men presenting LUTS to primary care. Two hundred seventy-four men completed a self-administered questionnaire, and 23 participated in face-to-face interviews. Regression analyses investigated ethnic differences in (a) the period between symptom onset and first primary care presentation (patient interval) and (b) the interval between first primary care presentation and investigation with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE). Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Half (144, 53%) reported a solitary first symptom, although multiple first symptoms were also common, particularly in Asian and Black men. There was no difference between ethnicities in patient interval or time from presentation to investigation. However, Asian men were offered less PSA testing (odds ratio 0.39; 95% confidence interval 0.17-0.92; p = 0.03). Qualitative data revealed ethnic differences in general practitioners' offer of DRE and PSA testing and highlighted limitations in doctor-patient communication and safety netting. CONCLUSION: Our study showed only small differences in primary care experiences, insufficient to explain ethnic inequalities in prostate cancer outcomes.

Targeted encouragement of GP consultations for possible cancer symptoms: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For some common cancers, survival is lower in the UK than in comparable high-income countries. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of a targeted postal intervention (to promote awareness of cancer symptoms and earlier help seeking) on patient consultation rates. DESIGN AND SETTING: A two-arm randomised controlled trial was carried out on patients aged 50-84 years registered at 23 general practices in rural and urban areas of Greater London, Greater Manchester, and the North East of England. METHOD: Patients who had not had a consultation at their general practice in the previous 12 months and had at least two other risk factors for late presentation with cancer were randomised to intervention and control arms. The intervention consisted of a posted letter and leaflet. Primary outcome was the number of consultations at the practice with patients randomised to each arm in the 6 months subsequent to posting the intervention. All patients with outcome data were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: In total, 1513 patients were individually randomised to the intervention (n = 783) and control (n = 730) arms between Nov 2016 - May 2017; outcome data were available for 749 and 705 patients, respectively, with a statistically significantly higher rate of consultation in the intervention arm compared with the control arm: 436 versus 335 consultations (relative risk 1.40, 95% confidence interval = 1.11 to 1.77, P = 0.004). There was, however, no difference in the numbers of patients consulting. CONCLUSION: Targeted interventions of this nature can change behaviour; there is a need to develop interventions that can be more effective at engaging patients with primary care. This study demonstrates that targeted interventions promoting both awareness of possible cancer symptoms and earlier health seeking, can change behaviour. There is a need to develop and test interventions that can be more effective at engaging the most at-risk patients.

The impact of health literacy on diagnosis and outcomes of symptomatic cancer by ethnicity: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic minorities in multi-ethnic societies like the UK and USA have poorer outcomes for some cancer types when compared with the majority. The causes of ethnic inequalities in cancer outcomes are complex and not fully understood. In particular, the potential role of health literacy on symptomatic presentation and diagnostic interval (the period between first consultation within primary care and definitive diagnosis of cancer) by ethnicity is unknown. Given the increasing need for shared decision-making and patient involvement in the diagnostic process, understanding the potential impact of the differences in health literacy may help redress ethnic inequality in cancer outcomes. The present study aims to critically examine the evidence in this area. METHODS: Seven electronic databases will be searched using keywords and controlled vocabulary related to ethnicity, health literacy, cancer diagnosis and cancer outcomes. Citations and bibliography searches of included studies will be performed to identify relevant studies that have cited eligible articles. Authors of included studies will be contacted to identify unpublished studies. Eligible studies will be restricted to primary cancers. Study quality will be evaluated in using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists. A descriptive summary of selected studies will be presented, and the synthesis will follow a narrative framework. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will summarise the evidence regarding ethnic inequality in health literacy and how this impacts on diagnosis and outcomes of cancer. The review will identify possible areas for future research, and inform clinical practice and interventions to reduce ethnic inequalities in cancer diagnosis and outcomes.

Ethnic differences in patients' preferences for prostate cancer investigation: a vignette-based survey in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Minority ethnic groups in the UK have worse outcomes for some cancer types compared with the white majority. Black males have worse staging at diagnosis of prostate cancer and often present as emergencies, suggesting possible delays in the diagnostic pathway. Delay may arise from lower awareness of cancer symptoms, reluctance to report symptoms, reduced desire for investigation, or a combination of these. Reduced desire for investigation was examined in this study AIM: To investigate whether black males in the UK would choose to be tested for prostate cancer compared with the white majority. DESIGN AND SETTING: A vignette (hypothetical scenario)-based, electronic survey of male patients aged ≥40 years from four general practices in Bristol, UK. METHOD: The vignettes described possible prostate cancer symptoms (equating to risk levels of 2%, 5%, and 10%), investigative procedures, and possible outcomes. Participants indicated whether they would choose investigation in these scenarios. Analysis used logistic regression, with preference for investigation as the outcome variable and ethnicity as the main explanatory variable. RESULTS: In total, 449 (81%) of 555 participants opted for investigation, regardless of risk levels; of these, the acceptance rate was 94% (251 out of 267) among white males and 70% (198 out of 285) among black males. In multivariable analyses, preference for investigation was lower in black males, even after controlling for relevant confounding factors including specific risk level (odds ratio 0.13; 95% confidence interval = 0.07 to 0.25; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Black males are less likely to opt for investigation at any risk level of prostate cancer compared with white males. This may explain some of their late-stage presentation at diagnosis and subsequent poorer outcomes.

Ethnic inequalities in time to diagnosis of cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Minimising diagnostic delays in cancer may help improve survival. Ethnic minorities have worse outcomes in some cancer types when compared to the majority; this may relate in part to differences during the diagnostic phase. Only a few British studies have specifically explored this relationship, and no synthesis of these exists. The present study aimed to systematically review evidence on ethnic inequalities in cancer diagnosis, focussing on patient and primary care intervals of diagnosis. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched. Included studies were those conducted in the UK or elsewhere (where access to healthcare is comparable to the NHS) and those that described a time element during diagnosis. Study quality was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for cohort studies and synthesis method was narrative. RESULTS: Seven of 8,520 studies retrieved by our search met the review criteria; six conducted in the UK, and one in New Zealand. Five (including one covering several sites) focused on breast cancer, one on prostate, and one on oesophagogastric cancer. The studies employed different methods of ascertainment and definition of ethnic groups and defined diagnostic delay in a non-standardised way; therefore, narrative synthesis was performed. In breast cancer, three studies reported longer diagnostic intervals among ethnic minorities and two found no evidence of differences by ethnicity. There was some evidence of longer diagnostic and referral intervals among ethnic minorities in oesophagogastric and colorectal cancers, but no evidence of this in prostate, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, lung, and ovarian cancers. None of the studies identified shorter patient or primary care intervals in ethnic minorities. CONCLUSIONS: Existing studies provide insufficient evidence to confirm or refute ethnic inequalities in diagnostic intervals of cancer. Further studies are necessary to examine common cancer types including those frequently found in ethnic minorities (in addition to those covered here) and using current definitions of intervals in cancer diagnosis.

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.