4.6 Article

Diagnostic intervals before and after implementation of cancer patient pathways - a GP survey and registry based comparison of three cohorts of cancer patients

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1317-7

关键词

Diagnostic interval; Urgent referral; (early) diagnosis; Cancer; Primary care; Cohort; Denmark

类别

资金

  1. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  2. Danish Cancer Society
  3. Health Foundation (Helsefonden)
  4. Danish foundation Trygfonden
  5. Central Denmark Region Foundation for Primary Health Care Research (Praksisforskningsfonden)
  6. The Danish Cancer Society [R142-A9081, R72-A4448] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: From 2008, Danish general practitioners could refer patients suspected of having cancer to standardised cancer patient pathways (CPPs). We aimed to compare the length of the diagnostic interval in 2010 with the length of the diagnostic interval before (2004/05) and during (2007/08) the implementation of CPPs in Denmark for all incident cancer patients who attended general practice prior to the cancer diagnosis. Methods: General practitioner questionnaires and register data on 12,558 patients were used to compare adjusted diagnostic interval across time by quantile regression. Results: The median diagnostic interval was 14 (95% CI: 11; 16) days shorter during and 17 (95% CI: 15; 19) days shorter after the implementation of CPPs than before. The diagnostic interval was 15 (95% CI: 12; 17) days shorter for patients referred to a CPP in 2010 than during the implementation, whereas patients not referred to a CPP in 2010 had a 4 (95% CI: 1; 7) days longer median diagnostic interval; the pattern was similar, but larger at the 75th and 90th percentiles. Conclusion: The diagnostic interval was significantly lower after CPP implementation. Yet, patients not referred to a CPP in 2010 tended to have a longer diagnostic interval compared to during the implementation. CPPs may thus only seem to expedite the diagnostic process for some cancer patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据