Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMerriel, SWD
dc.contributor.authorArcher, S
dc.contributor.authorForster, AS
dc.contributor.authorEldred-Evans, D
dc.contributor.authorMcGrath, J
dc.contributor.authorAhmed, HU
dc.contributor.authorHamilton, W
dc.contributor.authorWalter, FM
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-20T09:39:33Z
dc.date.issued2022-07-26
dc.date.updated2022-07-19T19:38:52Z
dc.description.abstractObjectives: This study aimed to understand and explore patient and GP experiences of ‘traditional’ and ‘onestop’ prostate cancer diagnostic pathways in England. Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, analysed using inductive thematic analysis Setting: Patients were recruited from National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in London and in Devon; GPs were recruited via National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Networks. Interviews were conducted in person or via telephone. Participants: Patients who had undergone a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the prostate as part of their diagnostic work-up for possible prostate cancer, and GPs who had referred at least one patient for possible prostate cancer in the preceding 12 months. Results: 22 patients (aged 47 – 80 years) and 10 GPs (6 female, aged 38 – 58 years) were interviewed. Patients described three key themes: cancer beliefs in relation to patient’s attitudes towards prostate cancer; communication with their GP and specialist having a significant impact on experience of the pathway; and pathway experience being influenced by appointment and test burden. GP interview themes included: the challenges of dealing with imperfect information in the current pathway; managing uncertainty in identifying patients with possible prostate cancer, and sharing this uncertainty with them, and other social, cultural and personal contextual influences. Conclusions: Patients and GPs reported a range of experiences and views of the current prostate cancer diagnostic pathways in England. Patients valued ‘one-stop’ pathways integrating prostate MRI and diagnostic consultations with specialists over the more traditional approach of several hospital appointments. GPs remain uncertain how best to identify patients needing referral for urgent prostate cancer testing due to the lack of accurate triage and risk assessment strategies.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipCancer Research UKen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipWellcome Trusten_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipMedical Research Council (MRC)en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipProstate Cancer UKen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipUrology Foundationen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipBMA Foundationen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipImperial Health Charityen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipSonacare Inc.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipTrod Medical and Sophiris Biocorp for trials in prostate canceren_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipRoyal College of Surgeons of Englanden_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 12, article e054045en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054045
dc.identifier.grantnumberC8640/A23385en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/130305
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0003-2919-9087 (Merriel, Samuel)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_GB
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
dc.subjectProstate canceren_GB
dc.subjectdiagnostic pathwayen_GB
dc.subjectprimary careen_GB
dc.titleExperiences of ‘traditional’ and ‘one-stop’ MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathways in England: a qualitative study with patients and GPsen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2022-07-20T09:39:33Z
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.descriptionData sharing statement: All data requests should be submitted in writing to the corresponding authoren_GB
dc.identifier.journalBMJ Openen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ Open
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-07-13
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2022-07-19T19:38:54Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2022-08-03T12:17:02Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. 
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.