↓ Skip to main content

Primary care characteristics and stage of cancer at diagnosis using data from the national cancer registration service, quality outcomes framework and general practice information

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Primary care characteristics and stage of cancer at diagnosis using data from the national cancer registration service, quality outcomes framework and general practice information
Published in
BMC Cancer, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1497-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Maclean, Mona Jeffreys, Alex Ives, Tim Jones, Julia Verne, Yoav Ben-Shlomo

Abstract

Survival from cancer is worse in England than in some European countries. To improve survival, strategies in England have focused on early presentation (reducing delay to improve stage at diagnosis), improving quality of care and ensuring equity throughout the patient pathway. We assessed whether primary care characteristics were associated with later stage cancer at diagnosis (stages 3/4 versus 1/2) for female breast, lung, colorectal and prostate cancer. Data obtained from the National Cancer Registration Service, Quality Outcomes Framework, GP survey and GP workforce census, linked by practice code. Risk differences (RD) were calculated by primary care characteristics using a generalised linear model, accounting for patient clustering within practices. Models were adjusted for age, sex and an area-based deprivation measure. For female breast cancer, being with a practice with a higher two week wait (TWW) referral rate (RD -1.8 % (95 % CI -0.5 % to -3.2 %) p = 0.003) and a higher TWW detection rate (RD -1.7 % (95 % CI -0.3 % to -3.0 %) p = 0.003) was associated with a lower proportion diagnosed later. Being at a practice where people thought it less easy to book at appointment was associated with a higher percentage diagnosed later (RD 1.8 % (95 % CI 0.2 % to 3.4 %) p = 0.03). For lung cancer, being at practices with higher TWW referral rates was associated with lower proportion advanced (RD-3.6 % (95 % CI -1.8 %, -5.5 %) p < 0.001) whereas being at practices with more patients per GP was associated with higher proportion advanced (RD1.8 % (95 % CI 0.2, 3.4) p = 0.01). A higher rate of gastrointestinal investigations was associated with a lower proportion of later stage colorectal cancers (RD -2.0 % (95 % CI -0.6 % to -3.6 %) p = 0.01). No organisational characteristics were associated with prostate cancer stage. Easier access to primary care, faster referral and more investigation for gastrointestinal symptoms could reduce the proportion of people diagnosed later for female breast, lung and colorectal, but not prostate cancer. Differences between the four main cancers suggest different policies may be required for individual cancers to improve outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 19%
Student > Master 16 13%
Researcher 15 13%
Other 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 27 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Unspecified 5 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 33 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 July 2015.
All research outputs
#18,418,694
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#5,423
of 8,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,587
of 262,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#136
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,300 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,401 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.