ArticleBMJ open2025
How do primary care consultation dynamics affect the timeliness of cancer diagnosis in people with one or more long-term conditions? A qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore how pre-existing conditions affect the diagnostic process for potential cancer in primary care patients.
designQualitative interview study using thematic analysis underpinned by a critical realist approach.
settingPrimary care practices recruited through four Clinical Research Networks and UK health charities across England.
participantsInterviews were conducted with 75 patients with one or more pre-existing conditions (anxiety/depression, diabetes, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson's disease or multiple long-term conditions (four or more)) and 28 primary care professionals (general practitioners and nurses).
resultsThe study identified legitimacy as a central theme influencing patient trajectories in the health system while trying to receive a diagnosis for symptoms with which they presented to primary care. Patients engaged in self-triage to determine whether symptoms were 'legitimate' enough to seek care. Subsequent triaging steps (by receptionists, nurses and online systems) acted as gatekeepers, with decisions influenced by effectiveness of describing the symptom and subjective impressions. During consultations, clinicians relied on a mix of symptom narrative clarity, medical history and objective 'metrics' (eg, blood results, family history) to determine legitimacy for further investigations. Pre-existing conditions could either lower the threshold for referrals or obscure potential cancer symptoms. The stigma associated with mental health diagnoses often undermined perceived legitimacy and contributed to delays.
conclusionsLegitimacy is continuously negotiated throughout the diagnostic pathway. It is shaped by social, moral and biomedical judgements. To promote early cancer diagnosis for patients with pre-existing conditions, clinicians must make legitimacy assessments explicit, reduce stigma especially around mental health and standardise triage processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.