Back

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.

2026-09-11 primary care research
10.64898/2026.09.04.26362238 medRxiv
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.

50% of probability mass above

"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.