Acceptability of text messages for safety netting patients with low-risk cancer symptoms: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Safety netting is an important diagnostic strategy for patients presenting to primary care with potential (low-risk) cancer symptoms. Typically, this involves asking patients to return if symptoms persist. However, this relies on patients re-appraising their symptoms and making follow-up appointments, which could contribute to delays in diagnosis. Text messaging is increasingly used in primary care to communicate with patients, and could be used to improve safety netting. AIM: To explore the acceptability and feasibility of using text messages to safety net patients presenting with low-risk cancer symptoms in GP primary care (txt-netting). DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative focus group and interview study with London-based GPs. METHOD: Participants were identified using convenience sampling methods. Five focus groups and two interviews were conducted with 22 GPs between August and December 2016. Sessions were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: GPs were amenable to the concept of using text messages in cancer safety netting, identifying it as an additional tool that could help manage patients and promote symptom awareness. There was wide variation in GP preferences for text message content, and a number of important potential barriers to txt-netting were identified. Concerns were raised about the difficulties of conveying complex safety netting advice within the constraints of a text message, and about confidentiality, widening inequalities, and workload implications. CONCLUSION: Text messages were perceived to be an acceptable potential strategy for safety netting patients with low-risk cancer symptoms. Further work is needed to ensure it is cost-effective, user friendly, confidential, and acceptable to patients.

Performance characteristics of visualising the cervix in symptomatic young females: a review of primary care records in females with and without cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: The current strategy for timely detection of cervical cancer in young females centres on visualising the cervix when females present with gynaecological symptoms, but is based on expert opinion without an evidence base. AIM: To assess visualising the cervix in primary care in young females with gynaecological symptoms. DESIGN AND SETTING: A review of primary care records for females in England aged 20-29 years with cervical cancer (nationwide interview-based study) and in the general population (Clinical Practice Research Datalink database). METHOD: From primary care records the proportion of females was identified with gynaecological symptoms who had documented cervical examination in the year before diagnosis (cancers) and in 1-year age bands (general population). Of these, the proportion was identified that was then referred for suspected malignancy. RESULTS: Only 39% of young females with cervical cancer had documented examination at symptomatic presentation. Visualisation resulted in referral for suspected malignancy for 18% of those examined (95% confidence interval = 5% to 40%). Very few (<1.7%) symptomatic females in the general population had documented cervical examination. None were referred for suspected malignancy at the time. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of cervical examination to detect cancer is very low, highlighting the need for better triage tools for primary care. Until such tools are identified GPs should continue to consider cervical cancer when symptoms persist and the cervix is not obviously abnormal on clinical examination. Further research on additional triage tools such as cervical cytology used as a diagnostic aid is needed urgently.

Cervical cytology and the diagnosis of cervical cancer in older women.

OBJECTIVES: Most non-screen-detected cervical cancers are advanced stage. We assess the potential for cytology to expedite diagnosis when used outside of routine call and recall screening for cervical cancer. METHODS: Two cohorts of women with cytology that did not appear to have been taken as part of routine screening, nested within a census of cervical cytology, in England between April 2007 and March 2010 were studied: 93,322 women aged 40-69 at first cytology, and 14,668 women aged ≥70. The diagnostic performance of high grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) or worse cytology was estimated. We also estimated case-fatality from stage distribution in women aged ≥66 with and without cytology in the year prior to diagnosis. RESULTS: There were 259 cancers diagnosed in women aged 40-69 at first cytology, and 78 in women aged ≥70. The sensitivity of cytology ≥ HSIL for cancer was 89% and 83% respectively, and the number of women needed to test to identify one cancer was 404 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 355-462) and 226 (95% CI: 177-292) respectively. Women aged ≥66 with cytology within a year of diagnosis had earlier stage cancers than those without, corresponding to a 17-22% reduction in case fatality. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical cytology is an excellent identifier of cancer among women tested outside routine screening call and recall. Its use as a triage tool, for instance in women with vague gynaecological symptoms, could facilitate earlier stage diagnosis and reduce cervical cancer mortality.

Consultation rates in cervical screening non-attenders: opportunities to increase screening uptake in GP primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of cervical screening non-attenders presenting to general practice (GP) primary care over one year. SETTING: 137 practices in East London, UK. METHODS: Anonymous primary care records were downloaded using EMIS web (clinical software). Cervical screening nonattendance was defined as no recorded smear in the last 3.5 years (women aged 25-49) or 5.5 years (women aged 50-64). The last three consultation entries were used to estimate the proportion of non-attenders who consulted in GP over 3 months and 1 year using the Kaplan-Meier method. Newly registered women were assessed separately. Results were calculated for each practice and the median and interquartile range (IQR) across practices are presented. Heterogeneity was assessed using funnel plots. RESULTS: Of 261,810 women, 224,313 (86%) had been registered for >1 year. The proportion classified as non-attenders differed between those registered for >1 year (30%, IQR 27%--35%) and within the last year (49%, IQR 40%--57%), suggesting that screening records were less up-to-date in newly registered women. A median of 32% (IQR: 27%--37%) of non-attenders presented over 3 months, and 60% (IQR: 52%--67%) over 1 year. Funnel plots of the proportion of non-attenders presenting by the number of non-attenders showed substantial variation between practices. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of cervical screening non-attenders present to their GP at least once a year, in over 75% of practices. This represents a good opportunity for improving coverage by offering an alternative form of screening, such as self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing.