Patient-reported diagnostic intervals to colorectal cancer diagnosis in the Midland region of New Zealand: a prospective cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and objectives
New Zealand (NZ) has high rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) but low rates of early detection. The majority of CRC is diagnosed through general practice, where lengthy diagnostic intervals are common. We investigated factors contributing to diagnostic delay in a cohort of patients newly diagnosed with CRC.Methods
Patients were recruited from the Midland region and interviewed about their diagnostic experience using a questionnaire based on a modified Model of Pathways to Treatment framework and SYMPTOM questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the population characteristics. Chi-square analysis and logistic regression were used to analyse factors influencing diagnostic intervals.Results
Data from 176 patients were analysed, of which 65 (36.9%) experienced a general practitioner (GP) diagnostic interval of >120 days and 96 (54.5%) experienced a total diagnostic interval (TDI) > 120 days. Patients reporting rectal bleeding were less likely to experience a long TDI (odds ratio [OR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14-0.78) and appraisal/help-seeking interval (OR, 0.19, 95% CI: 0.06-0.59). Patients <60 were more likely to report a longer appraisal/help-seeking interval (OR, 3.32, 95% CI: 1.17-9.46). Female (OR, 2.19, 95% CI: 1.08-4.44) and Māori patients (OR, 3.18, 95% CI: 1.04-9.78) were more likely to experience a long GP diagnostic interval.Conclusion
NZ patients with CRC can experience long diagnostic intervals, attributed to patient and health system factors. Young patients, Māori, females, and patients experiencing change of bowel habit may be at particular risk. We need to increase symptom awareness of CRC for patients and GPs. Concentrated efforts are needed to ensure equity for Māori in access to screening, diagnostics, and treatment.
SUBMITTER: Blackmore T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9295611 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPancreatic cancer is the tenth most common cancer in the UK; however, outcomes are poor, in part due to late diagnosis. We aimed to identify symptoms and other clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with pancreatic cancer diagnosis and diagnostic intervals.MethodsWe did this prospective cohort study at seven hospitals in two regions in England. We recruited participants aged 40 years or older who were referred for suspicion of pancreatic cancer. Data were collected by use of a patient questionnaire and primary care and hospital records. Descriptive and regression analyses were done to examine associations between symptoms and patient factors with the total diagnostic interval (time from onset of the first symptom to the date of diagnosis), comprising patient interval (time from first symptom to first presentation) and health system interval (time from first presentation to diagnosis).FindingsWe recruited 391 participants between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2014 (24% response rate). 119 (30%) participants were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (41 [34%] had metastatic disease), 47 (12%) with other cancers, and 225 (58%) with no cancer. 212 (54%) patients had multiple first symptoms whereas 161 (41%) patients had a solitary first symptom. In this referred population, no initial symptoms were reported more frequently by patients with cancer than by those with no cancer. Several subsequent symptoms predicted pancreatic cancer: jaundice (51 [49%] of 105 patients with pancreatic cancer vs 25 [12%] of 211 patients with no cancer; p<0·0001), fatigue (48/95 [51%] vs 40/155 [26%]; p=0·0001), change in bowel habit (36/87 [41%] vs 28/175 [16%]; p<0·0001), weight loss (55/100 [55%] vs 41/184 [22%]; p<0·0001), and decreased appetite (41/86 [48%] vs 41/156 [26%]; p=0·0011). There was no difference in any interval between patients with pancreatic cancer and those with no cancer (total diagnostic interval: median 117 days [IQR 57-234] vs 131 days [IQR 66-284]; p=0·32; patient interval 18 days [0-37] vs 15 days [1-62]; p=0·22; health system interval 76 days [28-161] vs 79 days [30-156]; p=0·68). Total diagnostic intervals were shorter when jaundice (hazard ratio [HR] 1·38, 95% CI 1·07-1·78; p=0·013) and decreased appetite (1·42, 1·11-1·82; p=0·0058) were reported as symptoms, and longer in patients presenting with indigestion (0·71, 0·56-0·89; p=0·0033), back pain (0·77, 0·59-0·99; p=0·040), diabetes (0·71, 0·52-0·97; p=0·029), and self-reported anxiety or depression, or both (0·67, 0·49-0·91; p=0·011). Health system intervals were likewise longer with indigestion (0·74, 0·58-0·95; p=0·0018), back pain (0·76, 0·58-0·99; p=0·044), diabetes (0·63, 0·45-0·89; p=0·0082), and self-reported anxiety or depression, or both (0·63, 0·46-0·88; p=0·0064), but were shorter with male sex (1·41, 1·1-1·81; p=0·0072) and decreased appetite (1·56, 1·19-2·06; p=0·0015). Weight loss was associated with longer patient intervals (HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·54-0·89; p=0·0047).InterpretationAlthough we identified no initial symptoms that differentiated people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from those without pancreatic cancer, key additional symptoms might signal the disease. Health-care professionals should be vigilant to the possibility of pancreatic cancer in patients with evolving gastrointestinal and systemic symptoms, particularly in those with diabetes or mental health comorbidities.FundingNational Institute for Health Research and Pancreatic Cancer Action.
| S-EPMC6358142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Rectal bleeding and a change in bowel habits are considered to be alarm symptoms for colorectal cancer and they are also common symptoms for inflammatory bowel disease. However, most patients with these symptoms do not have any of these diseases. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for haemoglobin are used as triage tests in Sweden and other countries but little is known about the symptoms patients have when FITs are requested. OBJECTIVE:Firstly, to determine patients' symptoms when FITs are used as triage tests in primary care and whether doctors record the symptoms that patients report, and secondly to evaluate the association between symptoms, FIT results and possible prediction of colorectal cancer or inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS AND MATERIALS:This prospective study included 364 consecutive patients for whom primary care doctors requested a FIT. Questionnaires including gastrointestinal symptoms were completed by patients and doctors. RESULTS:Concordance between symptoms reported from patients and doctors was low. Rectal bleeding was recorded by 43.5% of patients versus 25.6% of doctors, FITs were negative in 58.3 and 52.7% of these cases respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of rectal bleeding recorded by patients for colorectal cancer or inflammatory bowel disease was 9.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.2-14.7); for rectal bleeding combined with a FIT the PPV was 22.6% (95% CI 12.2-33.0) and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.9% (95% CI 96.7-100). For patient-recorded change in bowel habits the PPV was 6.1% (95% CI 2.4-9.8); for change in bowel habits combined with a FIT the PPV was 18.2% (95% CI 9.1-30.9) and the NPV 100% (95% CI 90.3-100). CONCLUSIONS:Doctors should be aware that, during consultations, they do not record all symptoms experienced by patients. FITs requested in primary care, when found positive, may potentially be of help in prioritising referrals, also when patients present with rectal bleeding or change in bowel habits.
| S-EPMC7331274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective The purpose of this article is to determine whether patient-reported history items are predictive of shoulder pathology and have the potential for use in triaging patients with shoulder pathology to orthopaedic outpatient clinics. Setting It is set at two tertiary orthopaedic clinics. Patients All new patients reporting pain and/or disability of the shoulder joint were prospectively recruited. A total of 193 patients were enrolled, 15 of whom withdrew, leaving 178 patients composing the study sample. Design Patients completed a questionnaire on the history of their pathology, then the surgeon took a thorough history indicating the most likely diagnosis. The clinician then performed appropriate physical examination. Arthroscopy was the reference standard for those undergoing surgery and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with arthrogram for all others. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) of history items alone and in combination. We used the LRs to generate a clinical decision algorithm. Main Outcome Measures Diagnosis was determined through arthroscopy or MRI arthrogram. Reporting was standardized to ensure review of all structures. Results The physical examination and history agreed in 75% of cases. Of those that did not agree, the physical examination misdirected the diagnosis in 47% of our cases. In particular, history items were strong predictors of anterior and posterior instability and subscapularis tears and were combined in a tool to be utilized for screening patients. Conclusion The patient-reported history items were effective for diagnosing shoulder pathology and should be considered for use in a triaging instrument.
| S-EPMC5553515 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background New Zealand (NZ) has high rates of colorectal cancer but low rates of early diagnosis. Due to a lack of understanding of the pre-diagnostic experience from the patient’s perspective, it is necessary to investigate potential patient and health system factors that contribute to longer diagnostic intervals. Previous qualitative studies have discussed delays using The Model of Pathways to Treatment, but this has not been explored in the NZ context. This study aimed to understand the patient experience and perception of their general practitioner (GP) through the diagnostic process in the Waikato region of NZ. In particular, we sought to investigate potential barriers and facilitators that contribute to longer diagnostic intervals. Methods Ethical approval for this study was granted by the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee. Twenty-eight participants, diagnosed with colorectal cancer, were interviewed about their experience. Semi-structured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using The Model of Pathways to Treatment framework (intervals: appraisal, help-seeking, diagnostic). Results Participant appraisal of symptoms was a barrier to prompt diagnosis, particularly if symptoms were normalised, intermittent, or isolated in occurrence. Successful self-management techniques also resulted in delayed help-seeking. However if symptoms worsened, disruption to work and daily routines were important facilitators to seeking a GP consultation. Participants positively appraised GPs if they showed good technical competence and were proactive in investigating symptoms. Negative GP appraisals were associated with a lack of physical examinations and misdiagnosis, and left participants feeling dehumanised during the diagnostic process. However high levels of GP interpersonal competence could override poor technical competence, resulting in an overall positive experience, even if the cancer was diagnosed at an advanced stage. M?ori participants often appraised symptoms inclusive of their sociocultural environment and considered the impact of their symptoms in relation to family. Conclusions The findings of this study highlight the importance of tailored colorectal cancer symptom communication in health campaigns, and indicate the significance of the interpersonal competence aspect of GP-patient interactions. These findings suggest that interpersonal competence be overtly displayed in all GP interactions to ensure a higher likelihood of a positive experience for the patient.
| S-EPMC7530960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the introduction of a "time out consultation" with the general practitioner (GP) recommended to patients following the diagnosis of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) before start of treatment. METHODS:A prospective study using questionnaires to compare the number of GP consultations, with their content and outcomes before and after the introduction of an additional consultation with the GP to improve decision-making and adequate support. RESULTS:72 patients before and 98 patients after the introduction of the "time out consultation" participated. Introduction of the consultation increased the number of patients to contact their GP from 67% to 80%, but did not change kind or content of the consultations. Patients felt the consultation was comforting and were more satisfied with the GP after the introduction. There was no difference in outcomes measured by the questionnaires in all patients combined, but men, older patients and patients with palliative treatment options only did improve on specific outcomes after the introduction. CONCLUSION:The introduction of the "time out consultation" did not change the kind or content of GP consultations before start of CRC treatment, but patients did feel more comforted and satisfied. Subgroups of patients benefited on specific outcomes.
| S-EPMC7074010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective of this study is to investigate symptoms, clinical factors and socio-demographic factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and time to diagnosis.Prospective cohort study of participants referred for suspicion of CRC in two English regions. Data were collected using a patient questionnaire, primary care and hospital records. Descriptive and regression analyses examined associations between symptoms and patient factors with total diagnostic interval (TDI), patient interval (PI), health system interval (HSI) and stage.A total of 2677 (22%) participants responded; after exclusions, 2507 remained. Participants were diagnosed with CRC (6.1%, 56% late stage), other cancers (2.0%) or no cancer (91.9%). Half the cohort had a solitary first symptom (1332, 53.1%); multiple first symptoms were common. In this referred population, rectal bleeding was the only initial symptom more frequent among cancer than non-cancer cases (34.2% vs 23.9%, P=0.004). There was no evidence of differences in TDI, PI or HSI for those with cancer vs non-cancer diagnoses (median TDI CRC 124 vs non-cancer 138 days, P=0.142). First symptoms associated with shorter TDIs were rectal bleeding, change in bowel habit, 'feeling different' and fatigue/tiredness. Anxiety, depression and gastro-intestinal co-morbidities were associated with longer HSIs and TDIs. Symptom duration-dependent effects were found for rectal bleeding and change in bowel habit.Doctors and patients respond less promptly to some symptoms of CRC than others. Healthcare professionals should be vigilant to the possibility of CRC in patients with relevant symptoms and mental health or gastro-intestinal comorbidities.
| S-EPMC4997546 | biostudies-other
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Patient-physician communication about colorectal cancer screening can affect screening use, but discussions often lack information that patients need for informed decision making and seldom address personal preferences or barriers. To address this gap, a series of patient focus groups was conducted to guide the development of an online, interactive decision support program. This article presents findings on patient information needs and barriers to colorectal cancer screening after receiving a screening recommendation from a physician, and their perspectives on using electronic patient portals as platforms for health-related decision support. METHODS:Primary care patients with recent colonoscopy or stool testing orders were identified via the centralized data repository of a large Midwestern health system. Seven gender-stratified focus groups (N=45 participants) were convened between April and July 2016. Sessions were audio recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed for commonly expressed themes beginning in August 2016. RESULTS:Findings reveal a consistent need for simple and clear information on colorectal cancer screening. Participants desired step-by-step explanations of the colonoscopy procedure and information about bowel preparation options/alternatives. The desired level of additional information varied: some patients wanted to know about and act on test options, whereas others preferred following their physician-recommended testing path. Fears and concerns were prevalent, particularly about colonoscopy, and patients reported challenges getting these concerns and their informational needs addressed. Finally, they expressed consistent support for using the patient portal to gather additional information from their physician. CONCLUSIONS:Patient portals may offer an opportunity to build sustainable programs for decision support and assistance that are integrated with clinic workflows and processes.
| S-EPMC6438715 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the association of underlying diagnosis with outcomes after revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsFor this cohort study we used prospectively collected data from the Mayo Clinic Total Joint Registry on all revision TKA patients from 1993 to 2005 with 2- or 5-year response to a validated knee questionnaire that assesses pain and function. We used logistic regression to assess the odds of moderate-severe activities of daily living (ADL) limitations and moderate-severe index knee pain 2 and 5 years after revision TKA. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs are presented.ResultsThe underlying diagnosis for the 2- and 5-year cohorts was loosening, wear or osteolysis in 73% and 75%; dislocation, bone or prosthesis fracture, instability or non-union in 17% and 15%; and failed prior arthroplasty with components removed or infection in 11% and 11%, respectively. In multivariable adjusted analyses that included preoperative status, compared with patients with loosening/wear/osteolysis, patients with dislocation/fracture/instability/non-union had an OR of 2.1 for moderate-severe ADL limitation (95% CI 1.3, 3.1, P < 0.001) and those with failed prior arthroplasty/infection had an OR of 1.1 (95% CI 0.6, 1.8, P = 0.4). At 5 years, differences were no longer significant. In multivariable adjusted analyses, compared with patients with loosening/wear/osteolysis, patients with dislocation/fracture/instability/non-union had an OR of 2.0 for moderate-severe pain (95% CI 1.3, 3.1, P < 0.01) at 2 years and an OR of 2.1 (95% CI 1.3, 3.8, P = 0.01) at 5 years. Failed prior arthroplasty/infection was not significantly different than the reference category.ConclusionUnderlying diagnosis is independently associated with ADL limitations and pain after revision TKA. This information can help patients have realistic expectations of outcomes.
| S-EPMC3894673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are suboptimal. The most important barriers identified by patients are poorly understood. A comprehensive assessment of barriers to all recommended modalities is needed.MethodsIn 2007, a questionnaire was mailed to 6100 patients, aged 50-75 years, from 12 family medicine practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network. People aged 65-75 years and African Americans were oversampled. Patients were asked to rate 19-21 barriers to each of four recommended tests. In 2008, responses were coded on a 5-point scale; higher scores reflected stronger barrier endorsement.ResultsThe response rate was 55% (n=3357). Approximately 40% of respondents were aged >/=65 years, 30% were African-American, and 73% were adherent to screening. A clinician's failure to suggest screening and not knowing testing was necessary received the highest mean scores as barriers. Financial concerns and misconceptions were also cited. Barrier scores differed depending on whether respondents were never screened, overdue for screening, or adherent to guidelines. The top five barriers for each modality included test-specific barriers (e.g., handling stool, bowel preparation), which often outranked generic barriers to screening. Not knowing testing was necessary was a top barrier for all tests but colonoscopy.ConclusionsAlthough physician advice and awareness of the need for screening are important, barriers to screening are not homogenous across tests, and test-specific barriers warrant consideration in designing strategies to improve screening rates. Barrier scores differ by screening status, highlighting the need to address prior screening experience. Evidence that patients are more familiar with colonoscopy than with other modalities suggests an opportunity to improve screening rates by educating patients about alternative tests.
| S-EPMC2946819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBarriers experienced by patients influence the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Prior research has quantified how often patients encounter these challenges but has generally not revealed their complex perspective and experience with barriers.PurposeThis mixed-methods study was conducted to understand current perspectives on CRC screening.MethodsA two-part, mixed-methods study was conducted of primary care patients recruited from Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network practices. First, in June-July 2005 a survey was mailed to 660 patients aged 50-75 years posing an open-ended question about "the most important barrier" to CRC screening. Second, beginning in October 2005, seven gender- and largely race-specific focus groups involving 40 patients aged 45-75 years were conducted. Beginning in October 2005, survey verbatim responses were coded and quantitatively analyzed and focus group transcripts were qualitatively analyzed.ResultsResponses to the open-ended survey question, answered by 74% of respondents, identified fear and the bowel preparation as the most important barriers to screening. Only 1.6% of responses cited the absence of physician advice. Focus group participants cited similar issues and other previously reported barriers, but their remarks exposed the intricacies of complex barriers, such as fear, lack of information, time, the role of physicians, and access to care. Participants also cited barriers that have little documentation in the literature, such as low self-worth, "para-sexual" sensitivities, fatalism, negative past experiences with testing, and skepticism about the financial motivation behind screening recommendations.ConclusionsMixed-methods analysis helps to disaggregate the complex nuances that influence patient behavior. In the present study, patients explained the web of influences on knowledge, motivation, and ability to undergo CRC screening, which clinicians and policymakers should consider in designing interventions to increase the level of screening.
| S-EPMC2946825 | biostudies-literature