Inequalities and practice-level predictors of cancer diagnostic activity: longitudinal study in England
Fatimah, A. M.; Merriel, S. W.; Whitfield, E.; White, B.; Lyratzopoulos, G.; Francetic, I.
Show abstract
Background: Early cancer detection is aided by timely GP referrals. However, GP practices face pressures, particularly in deprived areas, which may be associated with diagnostic inequalities. Aim: To examine whether within-practice changes in access, workforce, and population income deprivation were associated with diagnostic care indicators. Design and setting: Retrospective longitudinal study of 6,194 practices between 2015-2019 and 2022-2023. Method: Panel fixed-effects regression examined USC referral rates, USC PPV, USC sensitivity, and emergency presentation rates. Predictors were patient-reported access, GP workforce, and practice population income deprivation. Results: Per one SD increase within practices, (i) USC referral rates were lower with better appointment-making experience (-1.4%) and older average GP age (-3.5%), and higher with female GP share (+1.3%); GP FTE showed a small positive association (+0.7% to +0.8%). (ii) USC PPV increased with older average GP age (+2.2%). (iii) USC sensitivity was lower with older average GP age (-1.1%); emergency presentations showed limited association with access or workforce factors. Practices had higher emergency presentation rates when serving the most deprived rather than least deprived populations (+13.7%). There was little evidence that deprivation modified access and workforce associations. Average GP age was an exception: USC referral associations weakened from Q2 to Q5, USC PPV peaked at Q3, and USC sensitivity was significant only in the most deprived quintile. Conclusion: Practice-level access and workforce factors were associated mainly with USC referral activity. Persistent deprivation gaps in emergency presentation suggest monitoring USC referrals alongside PPV, sensitivity, and emergency presentations.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Targeted encouragement of GP consultations for possible cancer symptoms: randomised controlled trial 94%
- Primary care transformation in Scotland: a comparison two cross-sectional national surveys of general practitioners’ views in 2018 and 2023 93%
- Primary care consultation length by deprivation and multimorbidity in England 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Primary care use of laboratory tests in Northern Ireland Western Health and Social Care Trust: a cross-sectional study 92%
- Identifying markers of health-seeking behaviour and healthcare access in UK electronic health records 92%
- Inequality in access to health and care services during lockdown - Findings from the COVID-19 survey in five UK national longitudinal studies 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Inequalities in the decline and recovery of pathological cancer diagnoses during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based study 91%
- Diagnostic performance of the faecal immunochemical test for patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care: a service evaluation in the South West of England 90%
- The impact of COVID-19 disruption to cervical cancer screening in England on excess diagnoses 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- A mixed-methods evaluation of patients’ views on primary care multi-disciplinary teams in Scotland 91%
- Patients’ perspectives on ecologically sustainable healthcare in general practice 90%
- Patient characteristics associated with clinically coded long COVID: an OpenSAFELY study using electronic health records 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- An external validation of the QCovid risk prediction algorithm for risk of mortality from COVID-19 in adults: national validation cohort study in England 90%
- COVID-19 collateral: Indirect acute effects of the pandemic on physical and mental health in the UK 89%
- Remote Covid Assessment in Primary Care (RECAP) risk prediction tool: derivation and real-world validation studies 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.