1
|
Saab MM, O'Driscoll M, FitzGerald S, Sahm LJ, Leahy-Warren P, Noonan B, Kilty C, Lyons N, Burns HE, Kennedy U, Lyng Á, Hegarty J. Primary healthcare professionals' perspectives on patient help-seeking for lung cancer warning signs and symptoms: a qualitative study. BMC PRIMARY CARE 2022; 23:119. [PMID: 35585504 PMCID: PMC9114293 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-022-01730-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2022] [Accepted: 05/11/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer incidence and mortality worldwide. Prompt patient help-seeking for signs and symptoms suggestive of lung cancer is crucial for early referral, diagnosis, and survivorship. However, individuals with potential lung cancer symptoms tend to delay help-seeking. This qualitative study explored perceived barriers to patient help-seeking and strategies to enhance help-seeking for lung cancer warning signs and symptoms from the perspective of primary healthcare professionals. METHODS Semi-structured focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 36 primary healthcare professionals. Data were collected via videoconferencing. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS The following two themes were created from the data: (i) perceived barriers to patient help-seeking for signs and symptoms of concern and (ii) facilitating early patient presentation for signs and symptoms of concern. Some participants believed that the high cost of a general practitioner visit, long waiting times, and previous bad experiences with the healthcare system would deter patients from seeking help for symptoms of lung cancer. Perceived patient-related barriers to help-seeking related to the different emotions associated with a potential cancer diagnosis as well as stigma, embarrassment, and guilt felt by smokers. Sociodemographic factors such as drug use, homelessness, living in rural areas, and being male and older were also perceived to impede patient help-seeking. The negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer help-seeking also featured strongly. Participants recommended several strategies to enable patients to seek help for symptoms of concern including targeted educational campaigns focussing on symptoms (e.g., cough) rather than behaviours (e.g., smoking), accessible and free health services, and using patients' support networks. CONCLUSIONS Patient-related and healthcare system-related barriers to help-seeking for lung cancer warning signs and symptoms include cost of healthcare, cancer fear, and various sociodemographic factors. Participants suggested that increased awareness and early patient help-seeking for symptoms of concern could be achieved through targeted patient education, national campaigns, the use of community support networks, and free and accessible targeted screening services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohamad M Saab
- Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, College Road, T12 AK54, Cork, Ireland.
| | - Michelle O'Driscoll
- Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, College Road, T12 AK54, Cork, Ireland
- School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Serena FitzGerald
- Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, College Road, T12 AK54, Cork, Ireland
| | - Laura J Sahm
- School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Patricia Leahy-Warren
- Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, College Road, T12 AK54, Cork, Ireland
| | - Brendan Noonan
- Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, College Road, T12 AK54, Cork, Ireland
| | - Caroline Kilty
- Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, College Road, T12 AK54, Cork, Ireland
| | - Noreen Lyons
- Rapid Access Lung Clinic, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - Heather E Burns
- National Cancer Control Programme, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Una Kennedy
- National Cancer Control Programme, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Áine Lyng
- National Cancer Control Programme, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Josephine Hegarty
- Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, College Road, T12 AK54, Cork, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hunter R, Wilkinson E, Snaith B. A single-centre experience of implementing a rapid CXR reporting and CT access pathway for suspected lung cancer: Initial outcomes. Radiography (Lond) 2022; 28:304-311. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2021.12.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2021] [Revised: 12/10/2021] [Accepted: 12/13/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
3
|
Okoli GN, Lam OLT, Reddy VK, Copstein L, Askin N, Prashad A, Stiff J, Khare SR, Leonard R, Zarin W, Tricco AC, Abou-Setta AM. Interventions to improve early cancer diagnosis of symptomatic individuals: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e055488. [PMID: 34753768 PMCID: PMC8578990 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055488] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2021] [Accepted: 10/21/2021] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To summarise the current evidence regarding interventions for accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. DESIGN A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodological framework for the conduct of scoping reviews and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and PsycINFO (Ovid) bibliographic databases, and websites of relevant organisations. Published and unpublished literature (grey literature) of any study type in the English language were searched for from January 2017 to January 2021. ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Study participants were individuals of any age presenting at clinics with symptoms indicative of cancer. Interventions included practice guidelines, care pathways or other initiatives focused on achieving predefined benchmarks or targets for wait times, streamlined or rapid cancer diagnostic services, multidisciplinary teams and patient navigation strategies. Outcomes included accuracy and timeliness of cancer diagnosis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS We summarised findings graphically and descriptively. RESULTS From 21 298 retrieved citations, 88 unique published articles and 16 unique unpublished documents (on 18 study reports), met the eligibility for inclusion. About half of the published literature and 83% of the unpublished literature were from the UK. Most of the studies were on interventions in patients with lung cancer. Rapid referral pathways and technology for supporting and streamlining the cancer diagnosis process were the most studied interventions. Interventions were mostly complex and organisation-specific. Common themes among the studies that concluded intervention was effective were multidisciplinary collaboration and the use of a nurse navigator. CONCLUSIONS Multidisciplinary cooperation and involvement of a nurse navigator may be unique features to consider when designing, delivering and evaluating interventions focused on improving accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the interventions identified through this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- George N Okoli
- George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Otto L T Lam
- George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Viraj K Reddy
- George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Leslie Copstein
- George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Nicole Askin
- Neil John Maclean Health Sciences Library, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Anubha Prashad
- Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (the Partnership), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jennifer Stiff
- Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (the Partnership), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Satya Rashi Khare
- Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (the Partnership), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Robyn Leonard
- Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (the Partnership), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Wasifa Zarin
- Knowledge Translation Program, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrea C Tricco
- Knowledge Translation Program, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Epidemiology Division and Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Centre of Excellence at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ahmed M Abou-Setta
- George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
- Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
An evaluation of a national mass media campaign to raise public awareness of possible lung cancer symptoms in England in 2016 and 2017. Br J Cancer 2021; 126:187-195. [PMID: 34718357 PMCID: PMC8770501 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01573-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2020] [Revised: 09/02/2021] [Accepted: 09/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND A two-phase 'respiratory symptoms' mass media campaign was conducted in 2016 and 2017 in England raising awareness of cough and worsening shortness of breath as symptoms warranting a general practitioner (GP) visit. METHOD A prospectively planned pre-post evaluation was done using routinely collected data on 15 metrics, including GP attendance, GP referral, emergency presentations, cancers diagnosed (five metrics), cancer stage, investigations (two metrics), outpatient attendances, inpatient admissions, major lung resections and 1-year survival. The primary analysis compared 2015 with 2017. Trends in metrics over the whole period were also considered. The effects of the campaign on awareness of lung cancer symptoms were evaluated using bespoke surveys. RESULTS There were small favourable statistically significant and clinically important changes over 2 years in 11 of the 15 metrics measured, including a 2.11% (95% confidence interval 1.02-3.20, p < 0.001) improvement in the percentage of lung cancers diagnosed at an early stage. However, these changes were not accompanied by increases in GP attendances. Furthermore, the time trends showed a gradual change in the metrics rather than steep changes occurring during or after the campaigns. CONCLUSION There were small positive changes in most metrics relating to lung cancer diagnosis after this campaign. However, the pattern over time challenges whether the improvements are wholly attributable to the campaign. Given the importance of education on cancer in its own right, raising awareness of symptoms should remain important. However further research is needed to maximise the effect on health outcomes.
Collapse
|
5
|
Moriarty Y, Lau M, Sewell B, Trubey R, Quinn-Scoggins H, Owen S, Padgett L, Kolovou V, Hepburn J, Buckle P, Playle R, Townson J, Robling M, Gilbert S, Dimitropoulou P, Edwards A, Mitchell C, Matthews M, Smits S, Wood F, Neal RD, Brain K. Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a targeted cancer awareness intervention for adults living in deprived areas of the UK. Br J Cancer 2021; 125:1100-1110. [PMID: 34453114 PMCID: PMC8391006 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01524-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2021] [Revised: 07/06/2021] [Accepted: 08/11/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cancer outcomes are poor in socioeconomically deprived communities, with low symptom awareness contributing to prolonged help-seeking and advanced disease. Targeted cancer awareness interventions require evaluation. METHODS This is a randomised controlled trial involving adults aged 40+ years recruited in community and healthcare settings in deprived areas of South Yorkshire and South-East Wales. INTERVENTION personalised behavioural advice facilitated by a trained lay advisor. CONTROL usual care. Follow-up at two weeks and six months post-randomisation. PRIMARY OUTCOME total cancer symptom recognition score two weeks post-randomisation. RESULTS Two hundred and thirty-four participants were randomised. The difference in total symptom recognition at two weeks [adjusted mean difference (AMD) 0.6, 95% CI: -0.03, 1.17, p = 0.06] was not statistically significant. Intervention participants reported increased symptom recognition (AMD 0.8, 95% CI: 0.18, 1.37, p = 0.01) and earlier intended presentation (AMD -2.0, 95% CI: -3.02, -0.91, p < 0.001) at six months. "Lesser known" symptom recognition was higher in the intervention arm (2 weeks AMD 0.5, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.97 and six months AMD 0.7, 95% CI: 0.16, 1.17). Implementation cost per participant was £91.34, with no significant between-group differences in healthcare resource use post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS Improved symptom recognition and earlier anticipated presentation occurred at longer-term follow-up. The ABACus Health Check is a viable low-cost intervention to increase cancer awareness in socioeconomically deprived communities. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN16872545.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yvonne Moriarty
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
| | - Mandy Lau
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Bernadette Sewell
- Swansea Centre for Health Economics, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | - Rob Trubey
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Harriet Quinn-Scoggins
- PRIME Centre Wales, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | | | - Louise Padgett
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - Vasiliki Kolovou
- School of Sport & Health Sciences, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Julie Hepburn
- Public Involvement Community, Health and Care Research Wales Support Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | | | - Rebecca Playle
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Julia Townson
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | | | | | | | - Adrian Edwards
- PRIME Centre Wales, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Caroline Mitchell
- Academic Unit of Primary Medical Care, University of Sheffield, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Stephanie Smits
- PRIME Centre Wales, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Fiona Wood
- PRIME Centre Wales, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Richard D Neal
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Kate Brain
- PRIME Centre Wales, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Round T, L'Esperance V, Bayly J, Brain K, Dallas L, Edwards JG, Haswell T, Hiley C, Lovell N, McAdam J, McCutchan G, Nair A, Newsom-Davis T, Sage EK, Navani N. COVID-19 and the multidisciplinary care of patients with lung cancer: an evidence-based review and commentary. Br J Cancer 2021; 125:629-640. [PMID: 33972746 PMCID: PMC8108433 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01361-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2020] [Revised: 02/04/2021] [Accepted: 03/11/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Delivering lung cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant and ongoing challenges. There is a lack of published COVID-19 and lung cancer evidence-based reviews, including for the whole patient pathway. We searched for COVID-19 and lung cancer publications and brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to review and comment on the evidence and challenges. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken up to 28 October 2020, producing 144 papers, with 113 full texts screened. We focused on new primary data collection (qualitative or quantitative evidence) and excluded case reports, editorials and commentaries. Following exclusions, 15 published papers were included in the review and are summarised. They included one qualitative paper and 14 quantitative studies (surveys or cohort studies), with a total of 2295 lung cancer patients data included (mean study size 153 patients; range 7-803). Review of current evidence and commentary included awareness and help-seeking; lung cancer screening; primary care assessment and referral; diagnosis and treatment in secondary care, including oncology and surgery; patient experience and palliative care. Cross-cutting themes and challenges were identified using qualitative methods for patients, healthcare professionals and service delivery, with a clear need for continued studies to guide evidence-based decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Round
- School of Population Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | | | - Joanne Bayly
- Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Kate Brain
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | | | | | | | - Crispin Hiley
- Research Department of Oncology, Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - Natasha Lovell
- Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Julia McAdam
- Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust, Lung Cancer Nurses UK, Shrewsbury, UK
| | - Grace McCutchan
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Arjun Nair
- NHS England Targeted Lung Health Checks Programme, Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Joint Clinical Lead, London, UK
| | | | | | - Neal Navani
- Lungs For Living Research Centre, University College London and Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
COVID-19 and the multidisciplinary care of patients with lung cancer: an evidence-based review and commentary. Br J Cancer 2021. [PMID: 33972746 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01361-6.] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Delivering lung cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant and ongoing challenges. There is a lack of published COVID-19 and lung cancer evidence-based reviews, including for the whole patient pathway. We searched for COVID-19 and lung cancer publications and brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to review and comment on the evidence and challenges. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken up to 28 October 2020, producing 144 papers, with 113 full texts screened. We focused on new primary data collection (qualitative or quantitative evidence) and excluded case reports, editorials and commentaries. Following exclusions, 15 published papers were included in the review and are summarised. They included one qualitative paper and 14 quantitative studies (surveys or cohort studies), with a total of 2295 lung cancer patients data included (mean study size 153 patients; range 7-803). Review of current evidence and commentary included awareness and help-seeking; lung cancer screening; primary care assessment and referral; diagnosis and treatment in secondary care, including oncology and surgery; patient experience and palliative care. Cross-cutting themes and challenges were identified using qualitative methods for patients, healthcare professionals and service delivery, with a clear need for continued studies to guide evidence-based decision-making.
Collapse
|
8
|
Lai J, Mak V, Bright CJ, Lyratzopoulos G, Elliss-Brookes L, Gildea C. Reviewing the impact of 11 national Be Clear on Cancer public awareness campaigns, England, 2012 to 2016: A synthesis of published evaluation results. Int J Cancer 2021; 148:1172-1182. [PMID: 32875560 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33277] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2020] [Revised: 08/07/2020] [Accepted: 08/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
The Be Clear on Cancer (BCoC) campaigns have run in England since 2010. They aim to raise awareness of possible cancer symptoms, encouraging people to consult a general practice with these symptoms. Our study provides an overview of the impact of 11 national campaigns, for bowel, lung, bladder and kidney, breast and oesophago-gastric cancers. We synthesised existing results for each campaign covering seven clinical metrics across the patient pathway from primary care attendances to one-year net survival. For each metric, "before" and "after" periods were compared to assess change potentially related to the campaign. Results show that primary care attendances for campaign-related symptoms increased for 9 of 10 campaigns and relevant urgent referrals for suspected cancer increased above general trends for 9 of 11 campaigns. Diagnostic tests increased for 6 of 11 campaigns. For 7 of 11 campaigns, there were increases in cancer diagnoses resulting from an urgent referral for suspected cancer. There were sustained periods where more cancers were diagnosed than expected for 8 of 10 campaigns, with higher than expected proportions diagnosed at an early stage for sustained periods for 4 of 10 campaigns. There was no impact on survival. In summary, there is evidence that the BCoC campaigns impact help-seeking by patients and referral patterns by general practitioners, with some impact on diagnosis (incidence and stage). There was no clear evidence of impact on survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Lai
- National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, London, UK
| | - Vivian Mak
- National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, London, UK
| | - Chloe J Bright
- National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, London, UK
| | - Georgios Lyratzopoulos
- National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, London, UK
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Lucy Elliss-Brookes
- National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, London, UK
| | - Carolynn Gildea
- National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Koo MM, Unger-Saldaña K, Mwaka AD, Corbex M, Ginsburg O, Walter FM, Calanzani N, Moodley J, Rubin GP, Lyratzopoulos G. Conceptual Framework to Guide Early Diagnosis Programs for Symptomatic Cancer as Part of Global Cancer Control. JCO Glob Oncol 2021; 7:35-45. [PMID: 33405957 PMCID: PMC8081530 DOI: 10.1200/go.20.00310] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2020] [Revised: 10/06/2020] [Accepted: 11/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Diagnosing cancer earlier can enable timely treatment and optimize outcomes. Worldwide, national cancer control plans increasingly encompass early diagnosis programs for symptomatic patients, commonly comprising awareness campaigns to encourage prompt help-seeking for possible cancer symptoms and health system policies to support prompt diagnostic assessment and access to treatment. By their nature, early diagnosis programs involve complex public health interventions aiming to address unmet health needs by acting on patient, clinical, and system factors. However, there is uncertainty regarding how to optimize the design and evaluation of such interventions. We propose that decisions about early diagnosis programs should consider four interrelated components: first, the conduct of a needs assessment (based on cancer-site-specific statistics) to identify the cancers that may benefit most from early diagnosis in the target population; second, the consideration of symptom epidemiology to inform prioritization within an intervention; third, the identification of factors influencing prompt help-seeking at individual and system level to support the design and evaluation of interventions; and finally, the evaluation of factors influencing the health systems' capacity to promptly assess patients. This conceptual framework can be used by public health researchers and policy makers to identify the greatest evidence gaps and guide the design and evaluation of local early diagnosis programs as part of broader cancer control strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Minjoung Monica Koo
- Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes (ECHO) Research Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Karla Unger-Saldaña
- CONACYT (National Council of Science and Technology)–National Cancer Institute, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Amos D. Mwaka
- Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
| | | | - Ophira Ginsburg
- Perlmutter Cancer Center and the Department of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY
| | - Fiona M. Walter
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Natalia Calanzani
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Jennifer Moodley
- Women's Health Research Unit, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
- Cancer Research Initiative, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
- SAMRC Gynaecology Cancer Research Centre, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Greg P. Rubin
- Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Sir James Spence Institute, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Georgios Lyratzopoulos
- Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes (ECHO) Research Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|