Factors shaping the implementation and use of Clinical Cancer Decision Tools by GPs in primary care: a qualitative framework synthesis.


Journal

BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 02 2021
Historique:
entrez: 20 2 2021
pubmed: 21 2 2021
medline: 15 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Clinical Cancer Decision Tools (CCDTs) aim to alert general practitioners (GPs) to signs and symptoms of cancer, supporting prompt investigation and onward referral. CCDTs are available in primary care in the UK but are not widely utilised. Qualitative research has highlighted the complexities and mechanisms surrounding their implementation and use; this has focused on specific cancer types, formats, systems or settings. This study aims to synthesise qualitative data of GPs' attitudes to and experience with a range of CCDTs to gain better understanding of the factors shaping their implementation and use. A systematic search of the published (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE) and grey literature (July 2020). Following screening, selection and assessment of suitability, the data were analysed and synthesised using normalisation process theory. Six studies (2011 to 2019), exploring the views of GPs were included for analysis. Studies focused on the use of several different types of CCDTs (Risk Assessment Tools (RAT) or electronic version of RAT (eRAT), QCancer and the 7-point checklist). GPs agreed CCDTs were useful to increase awareness of signs and symptoms of undiagnosed cancer. They had concerns about the impact on trust in their own clinical acumen, whether secondary care clinicians would consider referrals generated by CCDT as valid and whether integration of the CCDTs within existing systems was achievable. CCDTs might be a helpful adjunct to clinical work in primary care, but without careful development to legitimise their use GPs are likely to give precedence to clinical acumen and gut instinct. Stakeholder consultation with secondary care clinicians and consideration of how the CCDTs fit into a GP consultation are crucial to successful uptake. The role and responsibilities of a GP as a clinician, gatekeeper, health promoter and resource manager affect the interaction with and implementation of innovations such as CCDTs.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33608402
pii: bmjopen-2020-043338
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043338
pmc: PMC7896585
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e043338

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: None declared.

Références

BMJ. 2012 Jul 04;345:e4110
pubmed: 22763392
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Jul;69(684):e437-e443
pubmed: 31064743
Br J Gen Pract. 2012 Apr;62(597):213-6
pubmed: 22520906
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Feb 10;16:48
pubmed: 26860594
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 22;6:CD000072
pubmed: 28639262
BJGP Open. 2019 Mar 20;3(1):bjgpopen18X101635
pubmed: 31049415
Br J Cancer. 2015 Mar 31;112 Suppl 1:S77-83
pubmed: 25734392
BJGP Open. 2020 Dec 15;4(5):
pubmed: 33023870
BMC Med. 2010 Oct 20;8:63
pubmed: 20961442
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Apr;131:98-106
pubmed: 25769108
Br J Cancer. 2009 Dec 3;101 Suppl 2:S115-24
pubmed: 19956155
Br J Gen Pract. 2013 May;63(610):e345-53
pubmed: 23643233
Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 13;6(1):255
pubmed: 29237488
Lancet. 2016 Jun 4;387(10035):2323-2330
pubmed: 27059888
BMC Fam Pract. 2011 Sep 22;12:98
pubmed: 21939542
Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Aug 27;70(698):e612-e621
pubmed: 32839162
BMJ. 2012 Jun 18;344:e3996
pubmed: 22709962
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Nov 28;69(689):e809-e818
pubmed: 31740460
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2015 Nov;16(6):548-55
pubmed: 25731758
Fam Pract. 2015 Feb;32(1):101-5
pubmed: 25448163
Res Synth Methods. 2020 May;11(3):316-330
pubmed: 32090479
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Sep 6;19(1):648
pubmed: 31492139
Br J Gen Pract. 2013 Jan;63(606):e30-6
pubmed: 23336455

Auteurs

Paula Theresa Bradley (PT)

Medical School, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK paula_bradley@me.com.

Nicola Hall (N)

Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK.

Gregory Maniatopoulos (G)

Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK.

Richard D Neal (RD)

Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Vinidh Paleri (V)

Head and Neck Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.

Scott Wilkes (S)

Medical School, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH