Primary care practitioner diagnostic action when the patient may have cancer: a vignette survey in 20 European countries

Background Cancer survival rates vary widely between European countries, with differences in timeliness of diagnosis thought to be one key reason. There is little evidence on the way in which different healthcare systems influence Primary Care Practitioners’ (PCPs’) referral decisions in patients that could have cancer, and how this links with cancer survival. This study aimed to explore PCPs’ diagnostic actions in patients with symptoms that could be due to cancer, how they vary across European countries with marked differences in socio-economic development, healthcare investment and organisation, and how they relate to cancer survival rates. Methods A primary care study, with centres in twenty European countries with widely varying cancer survival rates. The on-line survey of PCPs used vignettes describing four patients with symptoms that could indicate cancer (lung, ovary, breast and colorectal). PCPs were asked how they would manage these patients. Correlations between the likelihood of taking immediate diagnostic action and physician characteristics were calculated. The likelihood of taking immediate diagnostic action in the different participating countries was also analysed, as well as the correlation with national 1-year relative cancer survival rates. Results A total of 2,086 PCPs answered the survey question, with a median of 72 PCPs per country. PCPs’ likelihood of organising a diagnostic test and/or referring to a specialist at the first consultation varied from 50 to 82% between countries PCPs who were more experienced, were working in more remote areas, or worked alone or in smaller practices, were more likely to take immediate diagnostic action than their peers. There was a significant negative correlation between national healthcare expenditure levels and likelihood of immediate diagnostic action (r=–0.55, P=0.012). However, there was no significant correlation between the likelihood of taking immediate diagnostic action and cancer survival (r=–0.27, P=0.278). Conclusions Europe shows large between-country variations in PCPs’ diagnostic action rates for patients who could have cancer. These are linked with differences in healthcare organisation and levels of healthcare investment.

[1]  G. Dinant,et al.  Identifying important health system factors that influence primary care practitioners’ referrals for cancer suspicion: a European cross-sectional survey , 2018, BMJ Open.

[2]  M. Malmström,et al.  It is important that the process goes quickly, isn't it?" A qualitative multi-country study of colorectal or lung cancer patients' narratives of the timeliness of diagnosis and quality of care. , 2018, European journal of oncology nursing : the official journal of European Oncology Nursing Society.

[3]  G. Taylor,et al.  How health system factors affect primary care practitioners’ decisions to refer patients for further investigation: protocol for a pan-European ecological study , 2018, BMC Health Services Research.

[4]  Melissa Matz,et al.  Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries , 2018, The Lancet.

[5]  M. McGrail,et al.  Family effects on the rurality of GP’s work location: a longitudinal panel study , 2017, Human Resources for Health.

[6]  J. Benneyan,et al.  Timeliness of access to lung cancer diagnosis and treatment: A scoping literature review. , 2017, Lung cancer.

[7]  P. Murchie,et al.  A cancer geography paradox? Poorer cancer outcomes with longer travelling times to healthcare facilities despite prompter diagnosis and treatment: a data-linkage study , 2017, British Journal of Cancer.

[8]  H. Thulesius,et al.  How the probability of presentation to a primary care clinician correlates with cancer survival rates: a European survey using vignettes , 2017, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[9]  Zerrin Aşan Greenacre,et al.  The Importance of Selection Bias in Internet Surveys , 2016 .

[10]  J. Hanprasertpong,et al.  Longer waiting times for early stage cervical cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy are associated with diminished long-term overall survival , 2015, Journal of gynecologic oncology.

[11]  Jane M. Young,et al.  Explaining variation in cancer survival between 11 jurisdictions in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: a primary care vignette survey , 2015, BMJ Open.

[12]  J. Emery,et al.  Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review , 2015, British Journal of Cancer.

[13]  K. Atkin,et al.  Cancer detection in primary care: insights from general practitioners , 2015, British Journal of Cancer.

[14]  Russell P. Harris,et al.  Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  S. Staniszewska,et al.  Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review , 2014, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[16]  Jane M. Young,et al.  Development of a survey instrument to investigate the primary care factors related to differences in cancer diagnosis between international jurisdictions , 2014, BMC Family Practice.

[17]  S. Pit,et al.  The effectiveness of recruitment strategies on general practitioner’s survey response rates – a systematic review , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[18]  Sandra Hollinghurst,et al.  Preferences for cancer investigation: a vignette-based study of primary-care attendees. , 2014, The Lancet. Oncology.

[19]  M. Coleman,et al.  The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: an international collaboration to inform cancer policy in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. , 2013, Health policy.

[20]  P. Gøtzsche,et al.  Overestimated lead times in cancer screening has led to substantial underestimation of overdiagnosis , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[21]  M. Frydenberg,et al.  Evidence of increasing mortality with longer diagnostic intervals for five common cancers: a cohort study in primary care. , 2013, European journal of cancer.

[22]  M. Coleman,et al.  Stage at diagnosis and colorectal cancer survival in six high-income countries: A population-based study of patients diagnosed during 2000–2007 , 2013, Acta oncologica.

[23]  A. Vanoli,et al.  The prognostic role of time to diagnosis and presenting symptoms in patients with pancreatic cancer. , 2013, Cancer epidemiology.

[24]  Bernard Rachet,et al.  Lung cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK: a population-based study, 2004–2007 , 2013, Thorax.

[25]  J. Wardle,et al.  Differences in cancer awareness and beliefs between Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): do they contribute to differences in cancer survival? , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[26]  Roger. T. Anderson,et al.  Effect on survival of longer intervals between confirmed diagnosis and treatment initiation among low-income women with breast cancer. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  I. Choi,et al.  The influence of hospital volume and surgical treatment delay on long-term survival after cancer surgery. , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[28]  Aziz Sheikh,et al.  Approaches to Recruiting 'Hard-To-Reach' Populations into Re-search: A Review of the Literature. , 2011, Health promotion perspectives.

[29]  W. Treasure Are the serious problems in cancer survival partly rooted in gatekeeper principles? , 2011, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[30]  Gill Lawrence,et al.  Evidence against the proposition that “UK cancer survival statistics are misleading”: simulation study with National Cancer Registry data , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[31]  B Rachet,et al.  Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, 1995–2007 (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): an analysis of population-based cancer registry data , 2011, Lancet.

[32]  R. Neal Commentary. Cancer diagnosis - the role of urgent referral guidelines. , 2010, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[33]  D. Forman,et al.  Cancer survival in England and the influence of early diagnosis: what can we learn from recent EUROCARE results? , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[34]  M A Richards,et al.  The size of the prize for earlier diagnosis of cancer in England , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[35]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The CAPER studies: five case-control studies aimed at identifying and quantifying the risk of cancer in symptomatic primary care patients , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[36]  H. Møller,et al.  A visual summary of the EUROCARE-4 results: a UK perspective , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[37]  T. Peters,et al.  Risk of ovarian cancer in women with symptoms in primary care: population based case-control study , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[38]  Margo C. Orchard,et al.  Response Audit of an Internet Survey of Health Care Providers and Administrators: Implications for Determination of Response Rates , 2008, Journal of medical Internet research.

[39]  H. Storm,et al.  [Cancer survival before and after initiating the Danish Cancer Control plan]. , 2008, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[40]  Jeff Luck,et al.  Measuring the Quality of Physician Practice by Using Clinical Vignettes: A Prospective Validation Study , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[41]  R. Winkens,et al.  Variation in test ordering behaviour of GPs: professional or context-related factors? , 2004, Family practice.

[42]  E. Kumpusalo,et al.  Does the doctors' professional experience reduce referral rates? Evidence from the Finnish referral study. , 1996, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[43]  C. Clancy,et al.  Gatekeeping revisited--protecting patients from overtreatment. , 1992, The New England journal of medicine.

[44]  D. Wilkin,et al.  Variation in general practitioners' referral rates to consultants. , 1987, The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[45]  H. Thulesius,et al.  How health system factors influence referral decisions in patients that may have cancer: European symposium report , 2016 .

[46]  G. Pond,et al.  Impact of wait times on survival for women with uterine cancer. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[47]  C. Hyde,et al.  Risk of breast cancer in symptomatic women in primary care: a case-control study using electronic records. , 2014, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[48]  M. Coleman,et al.  Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE--5-a population-based study. , 2014, The Lancet. Oncology.

[49]  C. Foot,et al.  How to improve cancer survival: Explaining England's relatively poor rates-The King's Fund, June 2011 , 2011 .

[50]  M. Sant,et al.  Survival for cancer patients in Europe. , 2009, Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanita.

[51]  R. Atkinson,et al.  Accessing Hidden and Hard-to-Reach Populations: Snowball Research Strategies , 2001 .

[52]  D. Freedman Ecological Inference and the Ecological Fallacy , 1999 .