Skip Navigation


Family Practice Advance Access originally published online on December 7, 2006
Family Practice 2007 24(1):48-55; doi:10.1093/fampra/cml063
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/1/48    most recent
cml063v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Evans, J.
Right arrow Articles by McPherson, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Evans, J.
Right arrow Articles by McPherson, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Minimizing delays in ovarian cancer diagnosis: an expansion of Andersen's model of ‘total patient delay’

Julie Evans, Sue Ziebland and Ann McPherson

DIPEx, Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK

Correspondence to Julie Evans. Email: julie.evans{at}dphpc.ox.ac.uk

Received 16 December 2005; Revised 27 June 2006; Accepted 25 October 2006.


   Abstract

Background. Ovarian cancer symptoms are vague and commonly occur in benign conditions; it often presents late and is diagnosed at an advanced stage when survival rates are poor. Studies of diagnostic delay in conditions with non-specific symptoms are rare.

Objectives. To study accounts of diagnostic delays in a sample of British women with ovarian cancer using Andersen's five-stage model of ‘total patient delay’ as an analytic framework.

Methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 43 women. Maximum variation sample was recruited via GPs, clinicians, support organizations and personal contacts.

Results. Most women reported pre-diagnostic symptoms and diagnostic delays. Patient delays conformed to Andersen's first four types: ‘appraisal, illness, behavioural and scheduling’ delays. ‘Treatment delays’, attributable at least in part to a doctor or the health care system, were common and we have broken them down into five categories: non-investigation of symptoms, treatment for non-cancer causes, lack of follow-up, referral delays and system delays.

Conclusions. Our data illuminate the reasons why some British women experience delays in obtaining an ovarian cancer diagnosis. Delays attributable to the women were often compounded by doctor or health service delays, enabling us to expand the fifth stage of Andersen's model. Diagnostic delays in general practice could be minimized by better history taking, explaining the rationale for ruling out non-cancer causes, adopting an ‘open-door’ policy for patients whose symptoms persist, considering abdominal ultrasound scans and introducing educational sessions for GPs about ovarian cancer symptomatology.

Keywords. Early diagnosis, ovarian neoplasms, provider delay, qualitative research, signs and symptoms.


Evans J, Ziebland S and McPherson A. Minimizing delays in ovarian cancer diagnosis: an expansion of Andersen's model of ‘total patient delay’.Family Practice 2007; 24: 48–55.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.