4.6 Article

Early diagnosis of lung cancer: evaluation of a community-based social marketing intervention

Journal

THORAX
Volume 67, Issue 5, Pages 412-417

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200714

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NHS Doncaster
  2. Yorkshire
  3. Humber Strategic Health Authority

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Poor UK lung cancer survival rates may, in part, be due to late diagnosis. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of a mixed-method community-based social marketing intervention on lung cancer diagnoses. Methods A public awareness campaign in conjunction with brief intervention training in general practices was piloted in six localities with a high lung cancer incidence. End points were self-reported awareness of lung cancer symptoms; intention to seek healthcare; chest x-ray referral rates in primary care; secular trends in the incidence of lung cancer and stage at diagnosis, compared before and after the intervention. Results 21% (128/600) (95% CI 18% to 25%) of the targeted population recalled something about the campaign. Compared with a responder in the control area, the odds of a responder in the intervention area saying that they would visit their general practitioner and request a chest x-ray for a cough was 1.97 times (95% CI 1.18 to 3.31, p=0.01). Primary care chest x-ray referral rates increased by 20% in the targeted practices in the year following the intervention compared with a 2% fall in the control practices. The difference was highly significant, with an incidence rate ratio of 1.22 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.33, p=0.001). There was a 27% increase in lung cancer diagnoses in the intervention area compared with a fall in the control area. The incidence rate ratio was 1.42 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.44 p=0.199). Conclusion This is encouraging early evidence that an awareness and early recognition initiative may facilitate lung cancer diagnosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available