Association between GPs' suspicion of cancer and patients' usual consultation pattern in primary care: A cross-sectional study

9Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Patients who rarely consult a GP in the 19-36 months before a cancer diagnosis have more advanced cancer at diagnosis and a worse prognosis. To ensure more timely diagnosis of cancer, the GP should suspect cancer as early as possible. Aim To investigate the GP's suspicion of cancer according to the patient with cancer's usual consultation pattern in general practice. Design and setting A cross-sectional study based on survey data from general practice of 3985 Danish patients diagnosed with cancer from May 2010 to August 2010, and linked to national register data. Method Using logistic regression analysis with restricted cubic splines, the odds ratio (OR) of the GP to suspect cancer as a function of the patient's number of face-to-face consultations with the GP in the 19-36 months before a cancer diagnosis was estimated. Results GPs' cancer suspicion decreased with higher usual consultation frequency in general practice. A significant decreasing trend in ORs for cancer suspicion was seen across usual consultation categories overall (P<0.001) and for each sex (males: P<0.05; females: P<0.05). GPs' cancer suspicion was lower in patients aged <55 years in both rare and frequent attenders compared with average attenders. Conclusion GPs suspect cancer more often in rare attenders ≥55 years. GPs' cancer suspicion was lower in younger patients (<55 years), in both rare and frequent attenders. GPs should be aware of possible missed opportunities for cancer diagnosis in young attenders and use safety netting to reduce the risk of missing a cancer diagnosis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jensen, H., Merrild, C. H., Vedsted, P., & Møller, H. (2019). Association between GPs’ suspicion of cancer and patients’ usual consultation pattern in primary care: A cross-sectional study. British Journal of General Practice, 69(679), E80–E87. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X700769

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free