Preferences for cancer investigation: a vignette-based study of primary-care attendees

被引:96
作者
Banks, Jonathan [1 ]
Hollinghurst, Sandra [1 ]
Bigwood, Lin [1 ]
Peters, Tim J. [2 ]
Walter, Fiona M. [3 ]
Hamilton, Willie [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Sch Social & Community Med, Bristol BS8 2PS, Avon, England
[2] Univ Bristol, Sch Clin Sci, Bristol BS8 2PS, Avon, England
[3] Univ Cambridge, Primary Care Unit, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Cambridge, England
[4] Univ Exeter, Exeter, Devon, England
关键词
COLORECTAL-CANCER; DECISION-MAKING; DIAGNOSIS; RISK; SYMPTOMS; SURVIVAL; ENGLAND; UK;
D O I
10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70588-6
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background The UK lags behind many European countries in terms of cancer survival. Initiatives to address this disparity have focused on barriers to presentation, symptom recognition, and referral for specialist investigation. Selection of patients for further investigation has come under particular scrutiny, although preferences for referral thresholds in the UK population have not been studied. We investigated preferences for diagnostic testing for colorectal, lung, and pancreatic cancers in primary-care attendees. Methods In a vignette-based study, researchers recruited individuals aged at least 40 years attending 26 general practices in three areas of England between Dec 6, 2011, and Aug 1, 2012. Participants completed up to three of 12 vignettes (four for each of lung, pancreatic, and colorectal cancers), which were randomly assigned. The vignettes outlined a set of symptoms, the risk that these symptoms might indicate cancer (1%, 2%, 5%, or 10%), the relevant testing process, probable treatment, possible alternative diagnoses, and prognosis if cancer were identified. Participants were asked whether they would opt for diagnostic testing on the basis of the information in the vignette. Findings 3469 participants completed 6930 vignettes. 3052 individuals (88%) opted for investigation in their first vignette. We recorded no strong evidence that participants were more likely to opt for investigation with a 1% increase in risk of cancer (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.99-1.06; p=0.189), although the association between risk and opting for investigation was strong when colorectal cancer was analysed alone (1.08, 1.03-1.13; p=0.0001). In multivariable analysis, age had an effect in all three cancer models: participants aged 60-69 years were significantly more likely to opt for investigation than were those aged 40-59 years, and those aged 70 years or older were less likely. Other variables associated with increased likelihood of opting for investigation were shorter travel times to testing centre (colorectal and lung cancers), a family history of cancer (colorectal and lung cancers), and higher household income (colorectal and pancreatic cancers). Interpretation Participants in our sample expressed a clear preference for diagnostic testing at all risk levels, and individuals want to be tested at risk levels well below those stipulated by UK guidelines. This willingness should be considered during design of cancer pathways, particularly in primary care. The public engagement with our study should encourage general practitioners to involve patients in referral decision making.
引用
收藏
页码:232 / 240
页数:9
相关论文
共 38 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2005, REF GUID SUSP CANC
  • [2] Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial
    Atkin, Wendy
    Dadswell, Edward
    Wooldrage, Kate
    Kralj-Hans, Ines
    von Wagner, Christian
    Edwards, Rob
    Yao, Guiqing
    Kay, Clive
    Burling, David
    Faiz, Omar
    Teare, Julian
    Lilford, Richard J.
    Morton, Dion
    Wardle, Jane
    Halligan, Steve
    [J]. LANCET, 2013, 381 (9873) : 1194 - 1202
  • [3] Predictors of Attendance for Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening Tests and Prostate Biopsy
    Avery, Kerry N. L.
    Metcalfe, Chris
    Vedhara, Kavita
    Lane, J. Athene
    Davis, Michael
    Neal, David E.
    Hamdy, Freddie C.
    Donovan, Jenny L.
    Blazeby, Jane M.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2012, 62 (04) : 649 - 655
  • [4] Likelihood of undergoing genetic testing for cancer risk: A population-based study
    Bosompra, K
    Flynn, BS
    Ashikaga, T
    Rairikar, CJ
    Worden, JK
    Solomon, LJ
    [J]. PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2000, 30 (02) : 155 - 166
  • [5] Communicating cancer risk information: the challenges of uncertainty
    Bottorff, JL
    Ratner, PA
    Johnson, JL
    Lovato, CY
    Joab, SA
    [J]. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 1998, 33 (01) : 67 - 81
  • [6] Cancer Research UK, 2013, ALL CANC COMB KEY FA
  • [7] 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
    Coleman, M. P.
    Forman, D.
    Bryant, H.
    Butler, J.
    Rachet, B.
    Maringe, C.
    Nur, U.
    Tracey, E.
    Coory, M.
    Hatcher, J.
    McGahan, C. E.
    Turner, D.
    Marrett, L.
    Gjerstorff, M. L.
    Johannesen, T. B.
    Adolfsson, J.
    Lambe, M.
    Lawrence, G.
    Meechan, D.
    Morris, E. J.
    Middleton, R.
    Steward, J.
    Richards, M. A.
    [J]. LANCET, 2011, 377 (9760) : 127 - 138
  • [8] Department of Health, 2007, CANC REF STRAT
  • [9] Routes to diagnosis for cancer - determining the patient journey using multiple routine data sets
    Elliss-Brookes, L.
    McPhail, S.
    Ives, A.
    Greenslade, M.
    Shelton, J.
    Hiom, S.
    Richards, M.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2012, 107 (08) : 1220 - 1226
  • [10] Elwyn G, 1999, BRIT J GEN PRACT, V49, P477