Time to diagnosis for a rare disease: managing medical uncertainty. A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: People with a rare disease commonly experience long delays from the onset of symptoms to diagnosis. Rare diseases are challenging to diagnose because they are clinically heterogeneous, and many present with non-specific symptoms common to many diseases. We aimed to explore the experiences of people with myositis, primary immunodeficiency (PID), and sarcoidosis from symptom onset to diagnosis to identify factors that might impact receipt of a timely diagnosis. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Our approach was informed by Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). We applied the lens of uncertainty management theory to tease out how patients experience, assess, manage and cope with puzzling and complex health-related issues while seeking a diagnosis in the cases of rare diseases. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 26 people with a rare disease. Ten participants had been diagnosed with a form of myositis, 8 with a primary immunodeficiency, and 8 with sarcoidosis. Time to diagnosis ranged from 6 months to 12 years (myositis), immediate to over 20 years (PID), and 6 months to 15 years (sarcoidosis). We identified four themes that described the experiences of participants with a rare disease as they sought a diagnosis for their condition: (1) normalising and/or misattributing symptoms; (2) particularising by clinicians; (3) asserting patients' self-knowledge; and (4) working together through the diagnosable moment. CONCLUSIONS: Managing medical uncertainty in the time before diagnosis of a rare disease can be complicated by patients discounting their own symptoms and/or clinicians discounting the scale and impact of those symptoms. Persistence on the part of both clinician and patient is necessary to reach a diagnosis of a rare disease. Strategies such as recognising pattern failure and accommodating self-labelling are key to diagnosis.

Diagnostic delay of sarcoidosis: an integrated systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sarcoidosis is a chronic inflammatory granulomatous disease of unknown cause. Delays in diagnosis can result in disease progression and poorer outcomes for patients. Our aim was to review the current literature to determine the overall diagnostic delay of sarcoidosis, factors associated with diagnostic delay, and the experiences of people with sarcoidosis of diagnostic delay. METHODS: Three databases (PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and ProQuest) and grey literature sources were searched. Random effects inverse variance meta-analysis was used to pool mean diagnostic delay in all types of sarcoidosis subgroup analysis. Diagnostic delay was defined as the time from reported onset of symptoms to diagnosis of sarcoidosis. RESULTS: We identified 374 titles, of which 29 studies were included in the review, with an overall sample of 1531 (694 females, 837 males). The overall mean diagnostic delay in all types of sarcoidosis was 7.93 months (95% CI 1.21 to 14.64 months). Meta-aggregation of factors related to diagnostic delay in the included studies identified three categories: (1) the complex and rare features of sarcoidosis, (2) healthcare factors and (3) patient-centred factors. Meta-aggregation of outcomes reported in case studies revealed that the three most frequent outcomes associated with diagnostic delay were: (1) incorrect diagnosis, (2) incorrect treatment and (3) development of complications/disease progression. There was no significant difference in diagnostic delay between countries with gatekeeper health systems (where consumers are referred from a primary care clinician to specialist care) and countries with non-gatekeeper systems. No qualitative studies examining people's experiences of diagnostic delay were identified. CONCLUSION: The mean diagnostic delay for sarcoidosis is almost 8 months, which has objective consequences for patient management. On the other hand, there is a paucity of evidence about the experience of diagnostic delay in sarcoidosis and factors related to this. Gaining an understanding of people's experiences while seeking a diagnosis of sarcoidosis is vital to gain insight into factors that may contribute to delays, and subsequently inform strategies, tools and training activities aimed at increasing clinician and public awareness about this rare condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42022307236.

Managing type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic is a team effort: a qualitative study of the experiences of young people and their parents.

Objective: To explore the experiences of young people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and their parents in accessing integrated family-centred care in the Australian Capital Territory during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and analysis: This is a pragmatic, qualitative descriptive study for which we conducted semistructured interviews with 11 young people with T1DM aged 12-16 years and 10 of their parents who attended an outpatient diabetes service in Canberra, Australia. Thematic analysis was conducted in accordance with the methods outlined by Braun and Clarke. Results: Three themes were identified: feeling vulnerable, new ways of accessing care and trust in the interdisciplinary diabetes healthcare team. Participants believed having T1DM made them more vulnerable to poor outcomes if they contracted COVID-19, resulting in avoidance of face-to-face care. Telephone consultations offered a convenient and contact-free way to undertake 3-monthly reviews. The greatest difference between telephone and face-to-face consultations was not having access to the whole interdisciplinary diabetes support team at one appointment, physical examination and haemoglobin A1c testing during telehealth consultations. Participants trusted that clinicians would arrange face-to-face meetings if required. Some felt a video option might be better than telephone, reflecting in part the need for more training in communication skills for remote consultations. Conclusion: Young people with T1DM and their parents require collaborative care and contact with multiple healthcare professionals to facilitate self-management and glycaemic control. While telephone consultations offered convenient, safe, contact-free access to healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic, the added value of video consultations and facilitating access to the whole interdisciplinary diabetes support team need to be considered in future clinical implementation of telehealth.