15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Geographic variation in referral practices for patients with suspected head and neck cancer: A survey of general practitioners using a clinical vignette

      research-article
      , BSc MNutrDiet PhD 1 , 2 , , , MBBS BSc(Med) DCH MPH FRACGP PhD 1 , , MBBS (Hons Class 1) BSc(Med) MBiostat FRACS 2 , 3 , 4 , , MBBS FRACS 2 , 3 , 4 , , MBBS MPH PhD FAFPHM 1 , 5
      The Australian Journal of Rural Health
      John Wiley and Sons Inc.
      access, disparities, general practice, hand neck cancer, health services, variation

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          General practitioners (GPs) play a crucial role in cancer care and GPs are often the first doctor that patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer will encounter. Head and neck cancer (HNC) is a relatively uncommon presentation in primary care, and evidence suggests that times to diagnosis and treatment of HNC vary based on geographical location of patients. This may be due to barriers to referral faced by regional or rural GPs as compared to those in metropolitan cities in Australia.

          Objective

          To investigate the effect of geographical location of GPs on management of patients with symptoms suggestive of HNC.

          Design

          This was a descriptive, analytical, cross‐sectional survey. Surveys were sent to GPs at practices in two primary health care networks in New South Wales, Australia (Mid North Coast Primary Healthcare Network and the Central and Eastern Sydney Primary Healthcare Network) between February and May 2020. Main outcome measures were perceived time from referral to specialist appointment, factors affecting timeliness of patient help‐seeking, and awareness and use of clinical guidelines.

          Findings

          A total of 1803 GPs were sampled, of which 196 responded (45 regional GPs and 151 metropolitan GPs). Less than half (48%) of regional GPs reported patients could expect to be seen by a specialist within 2 weeks of referral, compared to 70% of metropolitan GPs ( p = 0.001). Most metropolitan GPs stated they would refer a patient with suspected HNC to a surgeon subspecialising in HNC. Regional GPs were split between ear, nose, and throat (ENT) and general surgeons. Availability of services was the most common factor influencing referral practices for regional GPs, whereas for metropolitan GPs, this was the patient's symptoms. Awareness of government resources for cancer referrals was generally low.

          Discussion

          Regional GPs report patients with HNC are less likely to be seen by a specialist within optimal time frames compared to metropolitan GPs. Respondents reported different barriers to early referral of patients with suspected HNC, with regional GPs more often citing system‐level factors while metropolitan GPs more often cited patient‐level factors.

          Conclusion

          Evaluating service provision and uptake with respect to community need, and addressing of barriers to implementation, may minimise unwarranted clinical variation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.

              Postal and electronic questionnaires are widely used for data collection in epidemiological studies but non-response reduces the effective sample size and can introduce bias. Finding ways to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires would improve the quality of health research. To identify effective strategies to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. We searched 14 electronic databases to February 2008 and manually searched the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews, and all issues of two journals. We contacted the authors of all trials or reviews to ask about unpublished trials. Where necessary, we also contacted authors to confirm methods of allocation used and to clarify results presented. We assessed the eligibility of each trial using pre-defined criteria. Randomised controlled trials of methods to increase response to postal or electronic questionnaires. We extracted data on the trial participants, the intervention, the number randomised to intervention and comparison groups and allocation concealment. For each strategy, we estimated pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a random-effects model. We assessed evidence for selection bias using Egger's weighted regression method and Begg's rank correlation test and funnel plot. We assessed heterogeneity among trial odds ratios using a Chi(2) test and the degree of inconsistency between trial results was quantified using the I(2) statistic. PostalWe found 481 eligible trials. The trials evaluated 110 different ways of increasing response to postal questionnaires. We found substantial heterogeneity among trial results in half of the strategies. The odds of response were at least doubled using monetary incentives (odds ratio 1.87; 95% CI 1.73 to 2.04; heterogeneity P < 0.00001, I(2) = 84%), recorded delivery (1.76; 95% CI 1.43 to 2.18; P = 0.0001, I(2) = 71%), a teaser on the envelope - e.g. a comment suggesting to participants that they may benefit if they open it (3.08; 95% CI 1.27 to 7.44) and a more interesting questionnaire topic (2.00; 95% CI 1.32 to 3.04; P = 0.06, I(2) = 80%). The odds of response were substantially higher with pre-notification (1.45; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.63; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 89%), follow-up contact (1.35; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.55; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 76%), unconditional incentives (1.61; 1.36 to 1.89; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 88%), shorter questionnaires (1.64; 95% CI 1.43 to 1.87; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 91%), providing a second copy of the questionnaire at follow up (1.46; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.90; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 82%), mentioning an obligation to respond (1.61; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.22; P = 0.98, I(2) = 0%) and university sponsorship (1.32; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.54; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 83%). The odds of response were also increased with non-monetary incentives (1.15; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 79%), personalised questionnaires (1.14; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 63%), use of hand-written addresses (1.25; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; P = 0.32, I(2) = 14%), use of stamped return envelopes as opposed to franked return envelopes (1.24; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.35; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 69%), an assurance of confidentiality (1.33; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.42) and first class outward mailing (1.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21; P = 0.78, I(2) = 0%). The odds of response were reduced when the questionnaire included questions of a sensitive nature (0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.00; P = 0.51, I(2) = 0%).ElectronicWe found 32 eligible trials. The trials evaluated 27 different ways of increasing response to electronic questionnaires. We found substantial heterogeneity among trial results in half of the strategies. The odds of response were increased by more than a half using non-monetary incentives (1.72; 95% CI 1.09 to 2.72; heterogeneity P < 0.00001, I(2) = 95%), shorter e-questionnaires (1.73; 1.40 to 2.13; P = 0.08, I(2) = 68%), including a statement that others had responded (1.52; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.70), and a more interesting topic (1.85; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.26). The odds of response increased by a third using a lottery with immediate notification of results (1.37; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.65), an offer of survey results (1.36; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.61), and using a white background (1.31; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.56). The odds of response were also increased with personalised e-questionnaires (1.24; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.32; P = 0.07, I(2) = 41%), using a simple header (1.23; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.48), using textual representation of response categories (1.19; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.36), and giving a deadline (1.18; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.34). The odds of response tripled when a picture was included in an e-mail (3.05; 95% CI 1.84 to 5.06; P = 0.27, I(2) = 19%). The odds of response were reduced when "Survey" was mentioned in the e-mail subject line (0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97; P = 0.33, I(2) = 0%), and when the e-mail included a male signature (0.55; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80; P = 0.96, I(2) = 0%). Health researchers using postal and electronic questionnaires can increase response using the strategies shown to be effective in this systematic review.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                rebecca.venchiarutti@lh.org.au
                Journal
                Aust J Rural Health
                Aust J Rural Health
                10.1111/(ISSN)1440-1584
                AJR
                The Australian Journal of Rural Health
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1038-5282
                1440-1584
                11 March 2022
                August 2022
                : 30
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1111/ajr.v30.4 )
                : 501-511
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] ringgold 4334; Sydney School of Public Health Faculty of Medicine and Health The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia
                [ 2 ] ringgold 222415; Sydney Head and Neck Cancer Institute Department of Head and Neck Surgery Chris O'Brien Lifehouse Sydney New South Wales Australia
                [ 3 ] ringgold 4334; Central Clinical School Faculty of Medicine and Health The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia
                [ 4 ] ringgold 222415; Royal Prince Alfred Institute of Academic Surgery Sydney Local Health District Sydney New South Wales Australia
                [ 5 ] The Daffodil Centre The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW Sydney New South Wales Australia
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Rebecca L. Venchiarutti, Sydney Head and Neck Cancer Institute, Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia.

                Email: rebecca.venchiarutti@ 123456lh.org.au

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6493-7933
                Article
                AJR12859
                10.1111/ajr.12859
                9543286
                35276017
                dd6b8cb3-7248-4635-8781-d18d1e4b930d
                © 2022 The Authors. Australian Journal of Rural Health published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of National Rural Health Alliance Ltd..

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 11 February 2022
                : 31 October 2021
                : 14 February 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 11, Words: 5343
                Funding
                Funded by: Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4)
                Funded by: Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Sydney, as part of the Wiley ‐ The University of Sydney agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.
                Categories
                Original Research
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                August 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.0 mode:remove_FC converted:07.10.2022

                access,disparities,general practice,hand neck cancer,health services,variation

                Comments

                Comment on this article