Coping strategies and patient delay in patients with cancer

Cognitive and emotional processes influencing patient presentation or non-presentation of oral Cancer symptoms to healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVE

Greater time that patients take to present symptoms to health care providers (HCPs) increases the likelihood of later stage cancer, which increases mortality and morbidity in symptomatic cancers. The common-sense model (CSM) is used to understand time to first consultation with a healthcare provider, but inconsistencies exisy between its current use and important empirical findings.

METHOD

To resolve inconsistencies, we conducted a qualitative examination to determine how the CSM could be revised to better account for these findings. We conducted in-depth interviews of a consecutive sample of 38 recently diagnosed patients who described events from first noticing symptoms to first consultation. Framework analysis was used to develop a theoretical model of processes leading to presentation or non-presentation.

RESULTS

Patients reported median presentation times of 3-4 weeks. Early presentation was facilitated by pre-symptomatic perceptions of vulnerability to serious illnesses and beliefs that early intervention could mitigate illness. These patients rarely tried to identify symptoms. They responded inductively, seeking help because symptoms were unusual. Where patients did not describe pre-symptom perceptions of vulnerability, many deductively tried to identify symptoms but misattributed them to minor conditions. Pre-symptomatic perceptions of vulnerability could also prolong presentation. When vulnerability was characterized by intense fears of cancer and cancer treatment, patients tended to avoid thinking about symptoms which extended presentation time.

CONCLUSION

Risk perception theories explain how participants' pre-symptomatic perceptions of vulnerability and potential treatment outcomes influence presentation time. Incorporating risk perception perspectives into the CSM can improve its ability explain responses to ambiguous symptoms.

How do organisational characteristics influence teamwork and service delivery in lung cancer diagnostic assessment programmes? A mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic assessment programmes (DAPs) can reduce wait times for cancer diagnosis, but optimal DAP design is unknown. This study explored how organisational characteristics influenced multidisciplinary teamwork and diagnostic service delivery in lung cancer DAPs.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods approach integrated data from descriptive qualitative interviews and medical record abstraction at 4 lung cancer DAPs. Findings were analysed with the Integrated Team Effectiveness Model.

SETTING

4 DAPs at 2 teaching and 2 community hospitals in Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

22 staff were interviewed about organisational characteristics, target service benchmarks, and teamwork processes, determinants and outcomes; 314 medical records were reviewed for actual service benchmarks.

RESULTS

Formal, informal and asynchronous team processes enabled service delivery and yielded many perceived benefits at the patient, staff and service levels. However, several DAP characteristics challenged teamwork and service delivery: referral volume/workload, time since launch, days per week of operation, rural-remote population, number and type of full-time/part-time human resources, staff colocation, information systems. As a result, all sites failed to meet target benchmarks (from referral to consultation median 4.0 visits, median wait time 35.0 days). Recommendations included improved information systems, more staff in all specialties, staff colocation and expanded roles for patient navigators. Findings were captured in a conceptual framework of lung cancer DAP teamwork determinants and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified several DAP characteristics that could be improved to facilitate teamwork and enhance service delivery, thereby contributing to knowledge of organisational determinants of teamwork and associated outcomes. Findings can be used to update existing DAP guidelines, and by managers to plan or evaluate lung cancer DAPs. Ongoing research is needed to identify ideal roles for navigators, and staffing models tailored to case volumes.

Dispositional and Situational Avoidance and Approach as Predictors of Physical Symptom Bother Following Breast Cancer Diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Few studies examine whether dispositional approach and avoidance coping and stressor-specific coping strategies differentially predict physical adjustment to cancer-related stress.

PURPOSE

This study examines dispositional and situational avoidance and approach coping as unique predictors of the bother women experience from physical symptoms after breast cancer treatment, as well as whether situational coping mediates the prediction of bother from physical symptoms by dispositional coping.

METHOD

Breast cancer patients (N = 460) diagnosed within the past 3 months completed self-report measures of dispositional coping at study entry and of situational coping and bother from physical symptoms every 6 weeks through 6 months.

RESULTS

In multilevel structural equation modeling analyses, both dispositional and situational avoidance predict greater symptom bother. Dispositional, but not situational, approach predicts less symptom bother. Supporting mediation models, dispositional avoidance predicts more symptom bother indirectly through greater situational avoidance. Dispositional approach predicts less symptom bother through less situational avoidance.

CONCLUSION

Psychosocial interventions to reduce cancer-related avoidance coping are warranted for cancer survivors who are high in dispositional avoidance and/or low in dispositional approach.

DaPeCa-2: Implementation of fast-track clinical pathways for penile cancer shortens waiting time and accelerates the diagnostic process--A comparative before-and-after study in a tertiary referral centre in Denmark

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility and impact of a fast-track referral pathway on clinical time intervals in penile cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This observational study from a tertiary referral centre included 263 patients diagnosed before and after the introduction of an intervention to reduce clinical time intervals, the Cancer Patient Pathway (CPP). The CPP included fast-track referral and set time-frames for units participating in cancer diagnosis and treatment, and was introduced for penile cancer in Denmark on 1 January 2009. Median time intervals (in calendar days) with interquartile range were the main outcome measure.

RESULTS

A trend towards reduction was observed in all clinical time intervals, with a statistically significant reduction in the system interval (p = 0.01) and tertiary centre interval (p < 0.0001). The proportion of patients treated within the maximum accepted time-frame of 37 days after referral steadily increased after implementation of the CPP. In particular, unjustified waiting time was reduced significantly. This was mainly achieved through pre-booking of appointments and diagnostic time slots by a dedicated clinical coordinator.

CONCLUSIONS

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study examining the feasibility and impact of an intervention to reduce clinical time intervals in penile cancer. The Danish CPP was successful in reducing system and tertiary centre intervals. Future interventions need to address the long patient interval. Longer follow-up is needed to study the impact of CPP on mortality.

Patient delay in cancer diagnosis: what do we really mean and can we be more specific?

Background

Early diagnosis is a key focus of cancer control because of its association with survival. Delays in diagnosis can occur throughout the diagnostic pathway, within any one of its three component intervals: the patient interval, the primary care interval and the secondary care interval.

Discussion

A key focus for help-seeking research in patients with symptoms of cancer has been the concept of ‘delay’. The literature is plagued by definitional and semantic problems, which serve to hinder comparison between studies. Use of the word ‘delay’ has been criticised as judgemental and potentially stigmatising, because of its implications of intent. However, the suggested alternatives (time to presentation, appraisal interval, help-seeking interval and postponement of help-seeking) still fail to accurately define the concept in hand, and often conflate three quite separate ideas; that of an interval, that of an unacceptably long interval, and that of a specific event which caused delay in the diagnostic process. We discuss the need to disentangle current terminology and suggest the term ‘prolonged interval’ as a more appropriate alternative. Most studies treat the patient interval as a dichotomous variable, with cases beyond a specified time point classified as ‘delay’. However, there are inconsistencies in both where this line is drawn, ranging from one week to three months, and how, with some studies imposing seemingly arbitrary time points, others utilising the median as a divisive tool or exploring quartiles within their data. This not only makes comparison problematic, but, as many studies do not differentiate between cancer site, also imposes boundaries which are not necessarily site-relevant. We argue that analysis of the patient interval should be based on presenting symptom, as opposed to pathology, to better reflect the context of the help-seeking interval, and suggest how new definitional boundaries could be developed.

Summary

The word ‘delay’ is currently (conf)used to describe diverse conceptualisations of ‘delay’ and more mindful, and discerning language needs to be developed to enable a more sophisticated discussion. By stratifying help-seeking by presenting symptom(s), more accurate and informative analyses could be produced which, in turn, would result in more accurately targeted early diagnosis interventions.

The Danish Symptom Cohort: Questionnaire and Feasibility in the Nationwide Study on Symptom Experience and Healthcare-Seeking among 100 000 Individuals

Introduction. In order to develop strategies to prevent delay in diagnosis, it is important to gain knowledge of symptoms and healthcare-seeking processes in the population. This paper describes a combined survey and register-based study with (1) focus on development of a questionnaire concerning experience of symptoms and subsequent consequences and (2) feasibility of the study. Methods. The study is a nationwide cohort study of 100 000 individuals randomly selected from the Danish general population. A comprehensive questionnaire concerning experience of symptoms and subsequent consequences was developed. The methodological framework for the development included defining the domains to be measured, identification of previous items, scales and questionnaires in the literature, and pilot and field testing. Results. A total of five domains and 16 subdomains were defined covering the area of symptom experience, symptom characteristics, reaction in response to symptom experience, external factors, and personality characteristics with potential influence on the symptom experience. In total, 49 706 questionnaires were completed, yielding a response rate of 52.2%. Conclusion. We developed a comprehensive questionnaire used in a large combined survey and register-based study concerning experience of symptoms and subsequent consequences of symptom experiences. We succeeded in conducting a large survey providing the groundwork for The Danish Symptom Cohort.

Cancer patients' perceptions regarding the value of the physical examination: a survey study

BACKGROUND

Despite its clinical utility, progressive reliance on technology can lead to devaluing the physical examination in patients with advanced cancer. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether these patients have a positive or negative perception of the physical examination. A secondary objective was to determine whether these perceptions are related to interpersonal/relational values (symbolic) or diagnostic/objective values (pragmatic).

METHODS

One hundred fifty patients with cancer who were receiving concurrent oncology and palliative care were administered a 26-item survey regarding their overall perception of the physical examination. The primary outcome-patient responses to "In the last 3 months, I believe my experience while being examined has been overall: very negative (a score of -5) to very positive (a score of +5),"-was analyzed using the Sign test. Other items were predefined as either symbolic or pragmatic statements, and patient responses from strongly disagree (a score of 1) to strongly agree (a score of 5) were further analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test for associations between baseline characteristics and the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Most patients (83%) indicated that the overall experience of being examined was highly positive (median score, 4; interquartile range [IQR], 2-5; P ≤ .0001). Patients valued both the pragmatic aspects (median score, 5; IQR, 4-5) and symbolic aspects (median score, 4; IQR, 4-5) of the physical examination. Increasing age was independently associated with a more positive perception of the physical examination (odds ratio, 1.07 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.12 per year; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with advanced cancer indicate that the physical examination is a highly positive aspect of their care. These benefits are perceived as having both symbolic and pragmatic value. The physical examination should remain a cornerstone of clinical encounters.