Dataset Information

How does safety netting for lung cancer symptoms help patients to reconsult appropriately? A qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Safety netting in primary care is considered an important intervention for managing diagnostic uncertainty. This is the first study to examine how patients understand and interpret safety netting advice around low-risk potential lung cancer symptoms, and how this affects reconsultation behaviours.

Methods

Qualitative interview study in UK primary care. Pre-covid-19, five patients were interviewed in person within 2-3 weeks of a primary care consultation for potential lung cancer symptom(s), and again 2-5 months later. The general practitioner (GP) they last saw was interviewed face-to-face once. During the covid-19 pandemic, an additional 15 patients were interviewed only once via telephone, and their GPs were not interviewed or contacted in any way. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

The findings from our thematic analysis suggest that patients prefer active safety netting, as part of thorough and logical diagnostic uncertainty management. Passive or ambiguous safety netting may be perceived as dismissive and cause delayed reconsultation. GP safety netting strategies are not always understood, potentially causing patient worry and dissatisfaction. Telephone consultations and the diagnostic overshadowing of COVID-19 on respiratory symptoms impacted GPs' safety netting strategies and patients' appetite for active follow up measures.

Conclusions

Safety netting guidelines do not yet offer solutions that have been proven to promote symptom vigilance and timely reconsultation for low-risk lung cancer symptoms. This may have been affected by primary care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients prefer active or pre-planned safety netting coupled with thorough consultation techniques and a comprehensible diagnostic strategy, and may respond adversely to passive safety netting advice.

SUBMITTER: Black GB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9298706 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute illness is common in childhood, and it is difficult for healthcare professionals to distinguish seriously ill children from the vast majority with minor or self-limiting illnesses. Safety netting provides parents with advice on when and where to return if their child deteriorates, and it is widely recommended that parents of acutely sick young children should be given safety netting advice. Yet little is known about how and when this is given. We aimed to understand what safety netting advice first contact clinicians give parents of acutely sick young children, how, when, and why.MethodsThis was a qualitative study. Interviews and focus groups were held with doctors and nurses in a general practice surgery, a District General Hospital emergency department, a paediatric emergency department, and an out-of-hours service. Data were analysed using the method of constant comparison.ResultsSixteen clinicians participated. They described that safety netting advice includes advising parents what to look for, when and where to seek help. How safety netting was delivered and whether it was verbal or written was inconsistent, and no participants described being trained in this area. Safety netting appeared to be rarely documented, and was left to individual preference. Limitations of written materials, and structural barriers to the provision of safety netting, were perceived. Participants described that safety netting was influenced by clinicians' experience, confidence, time and knowledge; and perceived parental anxiety, experience, and competence. Participants noted several limitations to safety netting including not knowing if it has been understood by parents or been effective; parental difficulty interpreting information and desire for face-to-face reassurance; and potential over-reassurance.ConclusionFirst contact clinicians employ a range of safety netting techniques, with inconsistencies within and between organisations. Structural changes, clinician training, and documentation in patient notes may improve safety netting provision. Research is needed into the optimal components of safety netting advice so that clinicians can consistently deliver the most effective advice for parents.

Project description:ObjectivePancreatic cancer has poor survival rates due to non-specific symptoms leading to later diagnosis. Understanding how patients interpret their symptoms could inform approaches to earlier diagnosis. This study sought to explore symptom appraisal and help-seeking among patients referred to secondary care for symptoms suggestive of pancreatic cancer.DesignQualitative analysis of semistructured in-depth interviews. Data were analysed iteratively and thematically, informed by the Model of Pathways to Treatment.Participants and settingPancreatic cancer occurs rarely in younger adults, therefore patients aged ≥40 years were recruited from nine hospitals after being referred to hospital with symptoms suggestive of pancreatic cancer; all were participants in a cohort study. Interviews were conducted soon after referral, and where possible, before diagnosis.ResultsTwenty-six interviews were conducted (cancer n=13 (pancreas n=9, other intra-abdominal n=4), non-cancer conditions n=13; age range 48-84 years; 14 women). Time from first symptoms to first presentation to healthcare ranged from 1 day to 270 days, median 21 days. We identified three main themes. Initial symptom appraisal usually began with intermittent, non-specific symptoms such as tiredness or appetite changes, attributed to diet and lifestyle, existing gastrointestinal conditions or side effects of medication. Responses to initial symptom appraisal included changes in meal type or frequency, or self-medication. Symptom changes such as alterations in appetite and enjoyment of food or weight loss usually prompted further appraisal. Triggers to seek help included a change or worsening of symptoms, particularly pain, which was often a 'tipping point'. Help-seeking was often encouraged by others. We found no differences in symptom appraisal and help-seeking between people diagnosed with cancer and those with other conditions.ConclusionsGreater public and healthcare professional awareness of the combinations of subtle and intermittent symptoms, and their evolving nature, is needed to prompt timelier help-seeking and investigation among people with symptoms of pancreatic cancer.

Project description:BackgroundIn South Africa, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and cervical cancer the leading cause of cancer mortality. Most cancers are diagnosed at a late-stage and following symptomatic presentation. The overall purpose of the study was to inform interventions aimed at improving timely diagnosis of breast and cervical cancer.MethodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with women with potential breast or cervical cancer symptoms from urban and rural South Africa. Participants were recruited from a community-based cross-sectional study on breast and cervical cancer awareness. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach.ResultsEighteen women were interviewed (10 urban, 8 rural): the median age was 34.5 years (range 22-58). Most were unemployed, and five were HIV positive. Themes included impact and attribution of bodily changes; influence of social networks and health messaging in help-seeking; management of symptoms and help-seeking barriers. Breast changes were often attributed to manual activities or possible cancer. Women were often unsure how to interpret vaginal symptoms, attributing them to HIV, hormonal contraceptives, or partner infidelity. Concerns about cancer were based on health information from the radio, social networks, or from primary care providers. Prompt care seeking was triggered by impact of symptoms on personal lives. Rural women, especially with possible symptoms of cervical cancer, experienced challenges during help-seeking including judgmental attitudes of clinic staff. Most participants were skeptical of traditional medicine.ConclusionsThis is the first study exploring interpretation of possible breast and cervical cancer symptoms at a community level in South Africa. The process of interpreting bodily changes, symptom attribution and help-seeking is complex and influenced by women's everyday life experiences. Timely diagnosis interventions should not only include cancer symptom awareness but also address individual, structural and health systems related barriers to care.

Project description:Introduction: Lung cancer is the deadliest and most prevalent cancer worldwide. Lung cancer treatments have different characteristics and are associated with a range of benefits and side effects for patients. Such differences may raise uncertainty among drug developers, regulators, payers, and clinicians regarding the value of these treatment effects to patients. The value of conducting patient preference studies (using qualitative and/or quantitative methods) for benefits and side effects of different treatment options has been recognized by healthcare stakeholders, such as drug developers, regulators, health technology assessment bodies, and clinicians. However, evidence-based guidelines on how and when to conduct and use these studies in drug decision-making are lacking. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, we developed a protocol for a qualitative study that aims to understand which treatment characteristics are most important to lung cancer patients and to develop attributes and levels for inclusion in a subsequent quantitative preference survey. Methods: The study protocol specifies a four-phased approach: (i) a scoping literature review of published literature, (ii) four focus group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, (iii) two nominal group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, and (iv) multi-stakeholder discussions involving clinicians and preference experts. Discussion: This protocol outlines methodological and practical steps as to how qualitative research can be applied to identify and develop attributes and levels for inclusion in patient preference studies aiming to inform decisions across the drug life cycle. The results of this study are intended to inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding lung cancer treatment options. This protocol may assist researchers, drug developers, and decision-makers in designing qualitative studies to understand which treatment aspects are most valued by patients in drug development, regulation, and reimbursement.

Project description:BackgroundA promising approach to manage clinical uncertainty and thereby reduce the risk of preventable diagnostic harm is to use safety-netting advice (ie, communicating structured information to patients about when and where to reconsult healthcare).AimTo explore clinicians' and patients' views on when and how safety-netting can be successfully applied in primary-care and emergency-care settings.Design and settingAn exploratory qualitative research design; we performed focus groups and interviews in a Swedish setting.ParticipantsNine physicians working in primary or emergency care and eight patients or caregivers participated. The participants were an ethnically homogeneous group, originating from Western European or Australian backgrounds.MethodData were analysed inductively, using the framework method. The results are reported according to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines for reporting qualitative research.ResultsIn order to manage diagnostic uncertainty using safety-netting, clinicians and patients emphasised the need to understand the preconditions for the consultation (ie, the healthcare setting, the patient's capacity and existing power imbalance). Furthermore, participants raised the importance of establishing a mutual understanding regarding the patient's perspective and the severity of the situation before engaging in safety-netting advice.ConclusionThe establishment of a shared mental model between clinician and patient of the preconditions for the clinical encounter is a vital factor affecting how safety-netting advice is communicated and received and its ability to support patients in problem detection and planning after the visit. We suggest that successful safety-netting can be viewed as a team activity, where the clinician and patient collaborate in monitoring how the patient's condition progresses after the care visit. Furthermore, our findings suggest that to be successfully implemented, safety-netting advice needs to be tailored to the clinical context in general and to the patient-clinician encounter in particular.