Cargando…

The Andersen Model of Total Patient Delay: a systematic review of its application in cancer diagnosis

OBJECTIVE: Patient pathways to presentation to health care professionals and initial management in primary care are key determinants of outcomes in cancer. Reducing diagnostic delays may result in improved prognosis and increase the proportion of early stage cancers identified. Investigating diagnos...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walter, Fiona, Webster, Andrew, Scott, Suzanne, Emery, Jon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Royal Society of Medicine Press 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3336942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22008712
http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2011.010113
_version_ 1782231026139922432
author Walter, Fiona
Webster, Andrew
Scott, Suzanne
Emery, Jon
author_facet Walter, Fiona
Webster, Andrew
Scott, Suzanne
Emery, Jon
author_sort Walter, Fiona
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Patient pathways to presentation to health care professionals and initial management in primary care are key determinants of outcomes in cancer. Reducing diagnostic delays may result in improved prognosis and increase the proportion of early stage cancers identified. Investigating diagnostic delay could be facilitated by use of a robust theoretical framework. We systematically reviewed the literature reporting the application of Andersen's Model of Total Patient Delay (delay stages: appraisal, illness, behavioural, scheduling, treatment) in studies which assess cancer diagnosis. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases and conducted a narrative synthesis. Inclusion criteria were studies which: reported primary research, focused on cancer diagnosis and explicitly applied one or more stages of the Andersen Model in the collection or analysis of data. RESULTS: The vast majority of studies of diagnostic delay in cancer have not applied a theoretical model to inform data collection or reporting. Ten papers (reporting eight studies) met our inclusion criteria: three studied several cancers. The studies were heterogeneous in their methods and quality. The review confirmed that there are clearly identifiable stages between the recognition of a symptom, first presentation to a health care professional, subsequent diagnosis and initiation of treatment. There was strong evidence to support the existence and importance of appraisal and treatment delay as defined in the Andersen Model, although treatment delay requires expansion. There was some evidence to support scheduling delay which may be contributed to by both patient and the health service. Illness delay was often difficult to distinguish from appraisal delay. It was less clear whether behavioural delay exists as a separate significant stage. CONCLUSIONS: Greater consistency is required in the conduct and reporting of studies of diagnostic delay in cancer. We propose refinements to the Andersen Model which could be used to increase its validity and improve the consistency of reporting in future studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3336942
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Royal Society of Medicine Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33369422012-11-23 The Andersen Model of Total Patient Delay: a systematic review of its application in cancer diagnosis Walter, Fiona Webster, Andrew Scott, Suzanne Emery, Jon J Health Serv Res Policy Review OBJECTIVE: Patient pathways to presentation to health care professionals and initial management in primary care are key determinants of outcomes in cancer. Reducing diagnostic delays may result in improved prognosis and increase the proportion of early stage cancers identified. Investigating diagnostic delay could be facilitated by use of a robust theoretical framework. We systematically reviewed the literature reporting the application of Andersen's Model of Total Patient Delay (delay stages: appraisal, illness, behavioural, scheduling, treatment) in studies which assess cancer diagnosis. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases and conducted a narrative synthesis. Inclusion criteria were studies which: reported primary research, focused on cancer diagnosis and explicitly applied one or more stages of the Andersen Model in the collection or analysis of data. RESULTS: The vast majority of studies of diagnostic delay in cancer have not applied a theoretical model to inform data collection or reporting. Ten papers (reporting eight studies) met our inclusion criteria: three studied several cancers. The studies were heterogeneous in their methods and quality. The review confirmed that there are clearly identifiable stages between the recognition of a symptom, first presentation to a health care professional, subsequent diagnosis and initiation of treatment. There was strong evidence to support the existence and importance of appraisal and treatment delay as defined in the Andersen Model, although treatment delay requires expansion. There was some evidence to support scheduling delay which may be contributed to by both patient and the health service. Illness delay was often difficult to distinguish from appraisal delay. It was less clear whether behavioural delay exists as a separate significant stage. CONCLUSIONS: Greater consistency is required in the conduct and reporting of studies of diagnostic delay in cancer. We propose refinements to the Andersen Model which could be used to increase its validity and improve the consistency of reporting in future studies. Royal Society of Medicine Press 2012-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3336942/ /pubmed/22008712 http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2011.010113 Text en © The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Walter, Fiona
Webster, Andrew
Scott, Suzanne
Emery, Jon
The Andersen Model of Total Patient Delay: a systematic review of its application in cancer diagnosis
title The Andersen Model of Total Patient Delay: a systematic review of its application in cancer diagnosis
title_full The Andersen Model of Total Patient Delay: a systematic review of its application in cancer diagnosis
title_fullStr The Andersen Model of Total Patient Delay: a systematic review of its application in cancer diagnosis
title_full_unstemmed The Andersen Model of Total Patient Delay: a systematic review of its application in cancer diagnosis
title_short The Andersen Model of Total Patient Delay: a systematic review of its application in cancer diagnosis
title_sort andersen model of total patient delay: a systematic review of its application in cancer diagnosis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3336942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22008712
http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2011.010113
work_keys_str_mv AT walterfiona theandersenmodeloftotalpatientdelayasystematicreviewofitsapplicationincancerdiagnosis
AT websterandrew theandersenmodeloftotalpatientdelayasystematicreviewofitsapplicationincancerdiagnosis
AT scottsuzanne theandersenmodeloftotalpatientdelayasystematicreviewofitsapplicationincancerdiagnosis
AT emeryjon theandersenmodeloftotalpatientdelayasystematicreviewofitsapplicationincancerdiagnosis
AT walterfiona andersenmodeloftotalpatientdelayasystematicreviewofitsapplicationincancerdiagnosis
AT websterandrew andersenmodeloftotalpatientdelayasystematicreviewofitsapplicationincancerdiagnosis
AT scottsuzanne andersenmodeloftotalpatientdelayasystematicreviewofitsapplicationincancerdiagnosis
AT emeryjon andersenmodeloftotalpatientdelayasystematicreviewofitsapplicationincancerdiagnosis