S'abonner

Preferences for cancer investigation: a vignette-based study of primary-care attendees - 28/01/14

Doi : 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70588-6 
Jonathan Banks, DrPhD a, , Sandra Hollinghurst, PhD a, Lin Bigwood, MA a, Tim J Peters, ProfPhD b, Fiona M Walter, MD c, Willie Hamilton, ProfMD d
a School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK 
b School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK 
c Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 
d University of Exeter, Exeter, UK 

* Correspondence to: Dr Jonathan Banks, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK

Summary

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.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Plan


© 2014  Banks et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 15 - N° 2

P. 232-240 - février 2014 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Incidence of complications other than urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study
  • Robert K Nam, Patrick Cheung, Sender Herschorn, Refik Saskin, Jiandong Su, Laurence H Klotz, Michelle Chang, Girish S Kulkarni, Yuna Lee, Ronald T Kodama, Steven A Narod
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • The immune system and response to HER2-targeted treatment in breast cancer
  • Giampaolo Bianchini, Luca Gianni

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2025 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.