Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research

Reducing the time before consulting with symptoms of lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial in primary care

Sarah Smith, Shona Fielding, Peter Murchie, Marie Johnston, Sally Wyke, Rachael Powell, Graham Devereux, Marianne Nicolson, Una Macleod, Phil Wilson, Lewis Ritchie, Amanda J Lee and Neil C Campbell
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (606): e47-e54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X660779
Sarah Smith
Roles: research assistant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shona Fielding
Roles: lecturer in medical statistics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Murchie
Roles: senior lecturer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marie Johnston
Roles: professor in health psychology, Aberdeen Health Psychology Group
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sally Wyke
Roles: interdisciplinary professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachael Powell
Roles: Cancer research UK academic research fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Graham Devereux
Roles: professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marianne Nicolson
Roles: consultant medical oncologist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Una Macleod
Roles: professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Phil Wilson
Roles: professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lewis Ritchie
Roles: Mackenzie Professor of General Practice
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amanda J Lee
Roles: professor of medical statistics, Division of Applied Health Sciences
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neil C Campbell
Roles: reader, Centre of Academic Primary Care
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Most individuals with lung cancer have symptoms for several months before presenting to their GP. Earlier consulting may improve survival.

Aim To evaluate whether a theory-based primary care intervention increased timely consulting of individuals with symptoms of lung cancer.

Design and setting Open randomised controlled trial comparing intervention with usual care in two general practices in north-east Scotland.

Method Smokers and ex-smokers aged ≥55 years were randomised to receive a behavioural intervention or usual care. The intervention comprised a single nurse consultation at participants’ general practice and a self-help manual. The main outcomes were consultations within target times for individuals with new chest symptoms (≤3 days haemoptysis, ≤3 weeks other symptoms) in the year after the intervention commenced, and intentions about consulting with chest symptoms at 1 and 6 months.

Results Two hundred and twelve participants were randomised and 206 completed the trial. The consultation rate for new chest symptoms in the intervention group was 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.92 to 1.53; P = 0.18) times higher than in the usual-care group and the proportion of consultations within the target time was 1.11 (95% CI = 0.41 to 3.03; P = 0.83) times higher. One month after the intervention commenced, the intervention group reported intending to consult with chest symptoms 31 days (95% CI = 7 to 54; P = 0.012) earlier than the usual care group, and at 6 months this was 25 days (95% CI = 1.5 to 48; P = 0.037) earlier.

Conclusion Behavioural intervention in primary care shortened the time individuals at high risk of lung disease intended to take before consulting with new chest symptoms (the secondary outcome of the study), but increases in consultation rates and the proportions of consultations within target times were not statistically significant.

  • early detection of cancer
  • general practice
  • illness behaviour
  • lung neoplasms
  • randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is common and survival rates poor, particularly in the UK, where late stage at diagnosis has been highlighted as an important factor.4,–,4 Five-year survival rates are closely linked to disease stage at diagnosis, so there is potential to improve lung cancer survival by diagnosing it earlier. Recently, benefits have been reported for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, but with high false-positive rates and costs. Population screening is unlikely to be implemented in the near future and further trials (including UK Lung Screen) are being initiated.5,–,7

The alternative is to attempt to diagnose cancer early through rapid identification and investigation of those with symptoms. Lung cancer has been targeted for this by the National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative in England and the Detect Cancer Early Programme in Scotland.8,9 Achieving this will be challenging, but there are some grounds for optimism.10 Most individuals with lung cancer have unrecognised symptoms for several months before seeking medical help and there are indications that consulting behaviour is modifiable; for example, the wait before consulting is shorter for those with particular experiences, including previous chest infections.11 There have been encouraging findings from a recent public awareness campaign in Doncaster, including increases in symptom awareness and referrals for chest X-ray.12 Few interventions, however, have been evaluated in randomised trials. A systematic review found only five randomised trials of interventions to promote cancer awareness and early presentation.13 None of the interventions targeted lung cancer and only one included lung cancer symptoms.14 These trials reported modest effects on cancer awareness and attitudes, but none reported effects on consulting behaviour.

Interventions that have been developed using research evidence and theory to understand fully the underlying problem and how it may be targeted, and use behaviour change techniques found effective in other situations, are more likely to be effective.15 A previous article described the development of a theory-based primary care intervention that seeks to reduce the time taken by individuals at high risk of lung cancer to consult.10 This study evaluates the effect of this intervention on actual and intended consulting behaviour.

How this fits in

Most individuals with lung cancer have symptoms for several months before seeking medical help. This study developed a general practice-based intervention to be delivered to individuals at high risk of lung cancer. The intervention reduced the time individuals reported they would wait before consulting with various chest symptoms. Although this is encouraging, increased rates of consulting within target times were not statistically significant, so larger trials are needed.

METHOD

A parallel-group randomised controlled trial was carried out in two general practices in north-east Scotland.

Participants

Participants were long-term smokers (at least 20 pack-years) aged ≥55 years, including ex-smokers if their cessation date was within 10 years. Smokers and ex-smokers were identified from practice computerised records and a sample selected (every nth name from an alphabetical list, where n = [number eligible]/[number required]); these individuals were sent a letter from their general practice, inviting them to take part in the study. Two waves of recruitment were conducted, the first to establish recruitment rates and the second to achieve the target sample size.

Intervention

A consultation with a trained nurse guided each participant through a self-help manual, which the participant took home, and developed ‘if–then’ action plans (full details are published separately).10 The manual provided information, used behaviour-change techniques and sought to: engage high-risk individuals, using logos, celebrity endorsement by Liz Dawn (from Coronation Street), and ‘special attention’ messages; increase the salience and personal relevance of symptoms; reinforce the benefits of early intervention in lung cancer and other chest diseases using patient stories and frequent positive messages; sanction early consultation using messages from doctors, other patients, and Liz Dawn; provide prompts to self-monitoring; provide simple symptoms checklists linked to ‘if–then’ action plans; and tackle barriers to consultation using ‘if–then’ coping plans.16,17 Participants allocated to the intervention group who did not attend the nurse consultation were sent the self-help manual by post. The intervention was appraised at, and refined after, focus groups and interviews with patients from the target group, GPs, and individuals with lung cancer. The control group received usual care at their general practice, which included patient-initiated consultations, opportunistic smoking-cessation advice and, if applicable, annual reviews for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the number of general practice consultations, within target times, for individuals with new chest symptoms (≤3 days for haemoptysis and ≤3 weeks for other symptoms) in the year after the start of intervention. However, data on symptom duration were missing for most consultations, so the primary outcome was analysed in two parts: first, number of general practice consultations with new chest symptoms and, secondly, the proportion of those who consulted (and for whom duration data were available) that were within the target time. The secondary outcome was intention to consult with symptoms by a given time. This was assessed using four items: intervention, self-efficacy, knowledge, and mood; each requiring forced-choice direct estimation of the time taken before making an appointment to see a doctor for a given chest symptom scenario. Each item had 11 options ranging from <1 day to >6 months. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.78. These were converted into ‘number of days’ to give the analysis more meaning (for example, 3 weeks to 21 days), with <1 day converted to 1 day and >6 months to 180 days. The a priori decision was for the main outcome to be a single measure of intention combining all four items, but with the four items also presented separately for clinical relevance.

Additional measures of process were:

  • self-efficacy for consulting without delay; 10 items each with a 10-point scale (from ‘not at all confident’ to ‘totally confident’) summed to give scores ranging from 10 to 100, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85;

  • knowledge of symptoms of lung disease; 21 symptoms with ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘not sure’ answers, expressed as a percentage of answers correct;

  • risk perception; ‘how would you rate your chance of getting lung disease?’, with a five-point scale ranging from ‘very low’ to ‘very high’;

Adverse effects were assessed by:

  • the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), a validated scale measuring anxiety (7 items, range 0–21) and depression (7 items, range 0–21), with minimal confounding by somatic symptoms;18

  • the Cancer Worry Scale, a six-item scale (range 6–24) with internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of 0.88 in this study; 19,20 and

  • general practice consultation rates with anxiety or depression.

Wider health service effects were measured by total general practice consultations, and chest radiograph and respiratory medicine referrals.

Respiratory fitness for treatment was assessed by spirometry, which was measured for participants attending nurse consultations and categorised using Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria for COPD.21

Self-report data were collected by questionnaires at recruitment (pre-intervention) and 1 and 6 months after the nurse consultation. For the control group, who did not have a nurse consultation, matching dates were allocated by pairing each control participant at randomisation to an intervention participant and using the latter’s date of nurse consultation. For intervention-group participants who did not attend the nurse consultation, the date of posting their manual was used. Data on consultations and referrals during the years before and after the nurse consultation were collected by review of general practice case notes. Data on duration of symptoms were collected from both records of consultations in case notes and short questionnaires that participants were asked to complete if they consulted.

Sample size

It was estimated that, without intervention, 35% of participants would consult for respiratory symptoms,22 of whom 20% (7% of the total) would consult within target times.11 It was judged that an increase to 25% would be clinically worthwhile; a sample of 200 (100 in each group) would provide 90% power at 5% two-sided significance to detect this difference.

Randomisation

Invitations to participate and randomisation in equal numbers to intervention and control groups were both conducted at the start of the trial. Responses from consenting participants were stratified by general practice and given a unique identification number as they were received. When blocks of 24 had accumulated, random numbers were generated by the project senior statistician and assigned to the previously ordered identification numbers.

Blinding

Data entry from questionnaires was blind to group allocation. Detailed protocols and rules were used for abstraction of data from case notes, but blinding was not possible because indicators of nurse consultations were present in the case notes.

Statistical methods

Analysis was by intention to treat, with participants analysed according to the trial arm to which they were randomised. For counts of consultations by participants, Poisson regression was used to produce an estimate of the ratio of consultation rates between the two treatment groups. The proportion of consultations within the target time was analysed using a generalised linear model with a binomial distribution and logit link function. For outcome measures from questionnaires, linear mixed effects models were used to estimate the treatment differences at 1 month and 6 months, taking into account the correlation between the repeated outcomes. Main analyses were of all observed data adjusted for baseline count or score, age (in years), sex, and practice. This assumes that missing data were at random, therefore sensitivity analyses were conducted with all participants using multiple methods of missing value imputation, including the median value from completers, median values within a scale, hot-deck of completers (random selected value from completers), and last value carried forward, to check for important differences.23

RESULTS

Recruitment took place between 26 May 2008 and 28 February 2009. Of 2780 smokers and ex-smokers initially approached, 212 were eligible, consented, and randomised into two equal groups (Figure 1). There were no important differences between groups (Table 1). Of 82 intervention group participants, spirometry was normal (forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity [FEV1/FVC]≥0.7) for 40 (49%). The remainder had spirometric criteria for COPD: five (6%) mild (FEV1≥80% of predicted); 24 (29%) moderate (FEV1<80% and ≥50% of predicted); eight (10%) severe (FEV1<50% and ≥30% of predicted); and five (6%) very severe (FEV1<30% of predicted). Follow-up took place between 29 October 2008 and 10 June 2010, with 206 (102 intervention, 104 control) participants completing the trial (Figure 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of participants randomised

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Recruitment to the randomised trial and parallel qualitative study.

Figure 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2

Trial profile.

The adjusted ratio of consultation rates with new chest symptoms in the intervention versus control group was 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.92 to 1.53) (Table 2). Data on symptom duration were available for 105 of 250 (42%) consultations in the year after intervention commenced. In the intervention group, 52 of 65 (80%) consultations were within the target time, compared with 31 of 40 (78%) for the control group. Adjusted for age, practice, sex, and number within target time in the pre-intervention period, the rate ratio in the intervention versus control group was 1.11 (95% CI = 0.41 to 3.03; P = 0.83).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Consultation rates during the year before and after the nurse consultation or matched control date

The intervention group reported their intention to consult as statistically significantly sooner: 31 days (95% CI = 7 to 54) earlier at 1 month, and 25 days (95% CI = 1.5 to 48) earlier at 6 months. Of individual scenarios, the biggest difference was that concerning weight loss (Table 3). Re-analyses using multiple methods of imputation of missing data did not make meaningful changes to the findings (data not shown).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Intention, self-efficacy, knowledge, and mood before intervention and 1 and 6 months afterwards

There was strong evidence that the total consultation rate was higher in the intervention group (Table 2): the median number of consultations for any reason increased from six in the year before intervention to eight in the year after, while remaining unchanged at seven in the control group. The adjusted consultation rate ratio was 1.15 (95% CI = 1.04 to 1.27).

There was no evidence of a difference between groups in self-efficacy or perceived risk at 1 month or 6 months. Knowledge scores were significantly higher for the intervention group compared to controls at 1 month, but not after 6 months (Table 3). Cancer Worry Scores were not statistically different at 1 month, but were found to be higher in the intervention group at 6 months (0.79, 95% CI = 0.16 to 1.41) (Table 3). HADS scores were not affected by the intervention, nor were there differences in GP consultation rates for anxiety or depression (Table 2).

The numbers of chest radiograph referrals from the intervention group increased from eight (for eight participants) in the pre-intervention year to 17 (for 15 participants) in the year after the intervention commenced. From the control group, there were 11 referrals (10 participants) pre-intervention and 13 (12 participants) afterwards. Numbers of participants with respiratory medicine referrals increased from one in the pre-intervention year to 11 in the year after the intervention commenced. Respective figures for the control group were one and four. The numbers were too small to permit formal statistical testing.

DISCUSSION

Summary

For individuals at risk of lung cancer, a theory-based intervention in primary care shortened the intended time to consultation with new chest symptoms but, while consultation rates increased, this was not statistically significant. The intervention caused a small increase in cancer worry, but this did not translate into anxiety or depression.

Strengths and limitations

The primary outcome was analysed in two parts because data on symptom duration were missing for most consultations, despite the fact that data were collected from both case notes and questionnaires. This approach meant the findings on numbers of consultations for new chest symptoms were unaffected by missing data, but the data on proportions of consultations within target times should be viewed cautiously. Missing data on symptom duration may have been due to patients not remembering or GPs not recording the information. The former may be more likely for symptoms of long duration and this could explain the higher rates of symptoms within the target time that were found, compared to previous research.11 By splitting in two the effect size upon which the sample size was based, study power was lost and the study was, in the first place, only powered to detect a large difference. Thus while effects on consultations appeared encouraging, they were not statistically significant.

The secondary outcome, self-reported consulting intentions, is not equivalent to behaviour, but is the most proximal preceding factor and gives a strong indication of the likelihood that a behaviour will be performed.24 Translation of intentions into action is particularly likely when there are high levels of self-efficacy for early consultation, as has been found.25 By identifying and approaching potential participants from general practice, full data were obtained at all stages of recruitment. Initial recruitment rates were low, as is typical in this population; it is possible that participants are more interested in health, but their characteristics, weighted towards higher levels of deprivation, are typical of the wider high-risk group.

Comparison with existing literature

This trial adds weight to the limited existing research on interventions to reduce the time before consultation with symptoms of cancer. The recently reported public awareness campaign in Doncaster had encouraging effects but the authors called for randomised trials and the first of these are provided for lung cancer symptoms.12 Regarding other cancers, a systematic review of five randomised trials and three more recent randomised trials shows they have reported increased knowledge and awareness from various interventions on symptoms of colorectal, breast, prostate, and oral cancer, and melanoma.13,26,–,28 One randomised trial in the Netherlands included some lung cancer among other cancer symptoms and reported benefits to consulting intentions,14 but previous trials have not measured behaviour. Most interventions in these randomised trials have been leaflets and booklets but one trial on breast awareness showed that one-to-one interaction, as in the present intervention, is more effective than literature alone.28

Implications for research and practice

The findings of this study provide encouragement that intervention in primary care may lead to earlier consultation with symptoms of lung cancer, but fall short of proof. Evidence of an effect on actual consulting behaviour and its size is needed and will require a larger trial with more complete recording of symptom duration. The latter may require participants to be contacted after each consultation. Some additional observations from the present study are encouraging. The data collected on dyspnoea and spirometry show that severe lung disease is uncommon among the target group, so many would have been fit for aggressive treatment (surgery and radiotherapy). Rates of attendance at the intervention were high, suggesting that members of the target group are receptive. Furthermore, consultation rates with GPs and practice nurses averaged seven per year, so there are plenty of opportunities to engage patients.

By intervening in primary care, it is possible to shorten the time individuals at high risk of lung cancer intend to take before consulting with important symptoms. More research is needed to determine whether there is an effect on actual consulting behaviour and whether this is large enough to translate into improvements in prognosis.

Acknowledgments

Grateful thanks to the research nurses Marie Balment and Vivien Vaughan who delivered the intervention, and the interested patients who took part in the trial. Also to the staff at the general practices involved in the study, particularly Dr Peter Watson, Dr Iain Small, Susan Reynolds, and Michelle Bibby. Thank you also to Liz Dawn for providing words of support for the intervention and trial, and to Michael Head and Carol Sherriff who, with Phil Wilson (chair), oversaw the trial as the independent trial steering committee.

Notes

Funding

The study was funded by a project grant from Cancer Research UK, CRUK Grant Reference Number C542/A8695.

Ethical approval

Full ethical approval for the study was granted by the North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (REC reference number: 08/S0801/13) on 15 February 2008.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Trial registration

UKCRN 3804; ISRCTN 22421875. The full protocol is available from the corresponding author.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article on the Discussion Forum: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/bjgp-discuss

  • Received April 25, 2012.
  • Revision received May 22, 2012.
  • Accepted July 5, 2012.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2013

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Parkin DM
    (2001) Global cancer statistics in the year 2000. Lancet Oncol 2(9):533–543.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. The Scottish Executive Health Department
    (2001) Cancer scenarios: an aid to planning cancer services in Scotland in the next decade. (The Scottish Executive, Edinburgh).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Cancer Research UK
    Cancer survival statistics. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/survival/?a=5441 (accessed 22 Nov 2012).
  4. 4.↵
    1. Campbell NC,
    2. Elliott AM,
    3. Sharp L,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Rural and urban differences in stage at diagnosis of colorectal and lung cancers. Br J Cancer 84(7):910–914.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team
    (2011) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365(5):395–409.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Sox HC
    (2011) Better evidence about screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 365(5):455–457.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Field JK,
    2. Baldwin D,
    3. Brain K,
    4. et al.
    (2011) UKLS Team. CT screening for lung cancer in the UK: position statement by UKLS investigators following the NLST report. Thorax 66(8):736–737.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Richards MA
    (2009) The size of the prize for earlier diagnosis of cancer in England. Br J Cancer 101(Suppl 2):S125–129.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. The Scottish Government
    Detect cancer early, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Health/Services/Cancer/Detect-Cancer-Early (accessed 28 Nov 2012).
  10. 10.↵
    1. Smith SM,
    2. Murchie P,
    3. Devereux G,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Developing a complex intervention to reduce time to presentation with symptoms of lung cancer. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: 10.3399/bjgp12X654579.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Smith SM,
    2. Campbell NC,
    3. MacLeod U,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Factors contributing to the time taken to consult with symptoms of lung cancer: a cross-sectional study. Thorax 64(6):523–531.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Athey VL,
    2. Suckling RJ,
    3. Tod AM,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Early diagnosis of lung cancer: evaluation of a community-based social marketing intervention. Thorax 67(5):412–417.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Austoker J,
    2. Bankhead C,
    3. Forbes LJL,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Interventions to promote cancer awareness and early presentation: systematic review. Br J Cancer 101(Suppl 2):S31–S39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. De Nooijer J,
    2. Lechner L,
    3. Candel M,
    4. de Vries H
    (2004) Short- and long-term effects of tailored information versus general information on determinants and intentions related to early detection of cancer. Prev Med 38(6):694–703.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Campbell NC,
    2. Murray E,
    3. Darbyshire J,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ 334(7591):455–459.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Michie S,
    2. Johnston M,
    3. Francis J,
    4. et al.
    (2008) From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Appl Psychol 57:660–680.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Michie S,
    2. Johnston M,
    3. Abraham C,
    4. et al.
    Strengthening evaluation and implementation by specifying components of behaviour change interventions, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/health-psychology/BCTtaxonomy/ (accessed 22 Nov 2012).
  18. 18.↵
    1. Zigmond AS,
    2. Snaith RP
    (1983) The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 67(6):361–370.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Rees G,
    2. Fry A,
    3. Cull A,
    4. Sutton S
    (2004) Illness perceptions and distress in women at increased risk of breast cancer. Psychol Health 19:749–765.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    1. Lerman C,
    2. Trock B,
    3. Rimer B,
    4. et al.
    (1991) Psychological and behavioural implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med 114(8):657–661.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD)
    Spirometry for healthcare providers, http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GOLD%20SpirometryFull%5B1%5D.pdf (accessed 22 Nov 2012).
  22. 22.↵
    1. Simpson CR,
    2. Helms PJ,
    3. Taylor MW,
    4. Baxter-Jones ADG
    (2000) Respiratory morbidity in primary care: a population based study, using practice from the Scottish Continuous Morbidity Recording Research Database. Health Bull (Edinb) 58(6):489–496.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. White IR,
    2. Horton NJ,
    3. Carpenter J,
    4. Pocock SJ
    (2011) Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data. BMJ 342:d40.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Ajzen I
    (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec 50:179–211.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    1. Johnston DW,
    2. Johnston M,
    3. Pollard B,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Motivation is not enough: prediction of risk behavior following diagnosis of coronary heart disease from the theory of planned behavior. Health Psychol 23(5):533–538.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Morgan PD,
    2. Fogel J,
    3. Tyler ID,
    4. Jones JR
    (2010) Culturally targeted educational intervention to increase colorectal health awareness among African Americans. J Health Care Poor Underserved 21(3 Suppl):S132–S147.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Idriss NZ,
    2. Alikhan A,
    3. Baba K,
    4. Armstrong AW
    (2009) Online, video-based patient education improves melanoma awareness: a randomized controlled trial. Telemed J E Health 15(10):992–997.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Linsell L,
    2. Forbes LJ,
    3. Kapari M,
    4. et al.
    (2009) A randomised controlled trial of an intervention to promote early presentation of breast cancer in older women: effect on breast cancer awareness. Br J Cancer 101(Suppl 2):S40–S48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 63 (606)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 63, Issue 606
January 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reducing the time before consulting with symptoms of lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial in primary care
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Reducing the time before consulting with symptoms of lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial in primary care
Sarah Smith, Shona Fielding, Peter Murchie, Marie Johnston, Sally Wyke, Rachael Powell, Graham Devereux, Marianne Nicolson, Una Macleod, Phil Wilson, Lewis Ritchie, Amanda J Lee, Neil C Campbell
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (606): e47-e54. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X660779

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Reducing the time before consulting with symptoms of lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial in primary care
Sarah Smith, Shona Fielding, Peter Murchie, Marie Johnston, Sally Wyke, Rachael Powell, Graham Devereux, Marianne Nicolson, Una Macleod, Phil Wilson, Lewis Ritchie, Amanda J Lee, Neil C Campbell
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (606): e47-e54. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X660779
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • early detection of cancer
  • general practice
  • illness behaviour
  • lung neoplasms
  • randomised controlled trial

More in this TOC Section

  • Free-text analysis of general practice out-of-hours (GPOOH) use by people with advanced cancer: an analysis of coded and uncoded free-text data
  • General practice-based cancer research publications: a bibliometric analysis 2013–2019
  • Patient experiences of GP-led colon cancer survivorship care: a Dutch mixed-methods evaluation
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242