BackgroundCancer has long inspired fear, but the effect of fear is not well understood; it seems both to facilitate and to deter early diagnosis behaviours. To elucidate fear's behavioural effects, we systematically reviewed and synthesised qualitative literature to explore what people fear about cancer.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, AnthroSource, and Anthrobase for studies on cancer fear in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening and analysed 102 studies from 26 countries using thematic synthesis.ResultsFears of cancer emanated from a core view of cancer as a vicious, unpredictable, and indestructible enemy, evoking fears about its proximity, the (lack of) strategies to keep it at bay, the personal and social implications of succumbing, and fear of dying from cancer.ConclusionsThis view of cancer as ‘an enemy’ reprises the media's ‘war on cancer’ theme and may affect the acceptance of cancer early detection and prevention messages, since cancer's characteristics influenced whether ‘fight’ or ‘flight’ was considered appropriate.

Mental disorders are associated with suicidality and with stigma. Many consequences of stigma, such as social isolation, unemployment, hopelessness or stress, are risk factors for suicidality. Research is needed on the link between stigma and suicidality as well as on anti-stigma interventions and their effects on suicidality.

IntroductionCancers diagnosed following visits to emergency departments (ED) or emergency admissions (emergency presentations) are associated with poor survival and may result from preventable diagnostic delay. To improve outcomes for these patients, a better understanding is needed about how emergency presentations arise. This study sought to capture patients' experiences of this diagnostic pathway in the English NHS.MethodsEligible patients were identified in a service evaluation of emergency presentations and invited to participate. Interviews, using an open-ended biographical structure, captured participants' experiences of healthcare services before diagnosis and were analysed thematically, informed by the Walter model of Pathways to Treatment and NICE guidance in an iterative process.ResultsTwenty-seven interviews were conducted. Three typologies were identified: A: Rapid investigation and diagnosis, and B: Repeated cycles of healthcare seeking and appraisal without resolution, with two variants where B1 appears consistent with guidance and B2 has evidence that management was not consistent with guidance. Most patients’ (23/27) experiences fitted types B1 and B2. Potentially avoidable breakdowns in diagnostic pathways caused delays when patients were conflicted by escalating symptoms and a benign diagnosis given earlier by doctors. ED was sometimes used as a conduit to rapid testing by primary care clinicians, although this pathway was not always successful.ConclusionsThis study draws on patients' experiences of their diagnosis to provide novel insights into how emergency presentations arise. Through these typologies, we show that the typical experience of patients diagnosed through an emergency presentation diverges significantly from normative pathways even when there is no evidence of serious service failures. Consultations were not a conduit to diagnosis when they inhibited patients’ capacity to appraise their own symptoms appropriately and when they resulted in a reluctance to seek further healthcare.RecommendationsThe findings also point to potentially avoidable breakdowns in the diagnostic process. In particular, to encourage patients to return to the GP if symptoms escalate, a stronger emphasis is needed on diagnostic uncertainty in discussions between patients and doctors in both primary and secondary care. To improve appropriate access to rapid investigations, systems are needed for primary care to communicate directly with secondary care at the time of referral.

BackgroundMost cancers are diagnosed following contact with primary care. Patients diagnosed with cancer often see their doctor multiple times with potentially relevant symptoms before being referred to see a specialist, suggesting missed opportunities during doctor-patient conversations.ObjectiveTo understand doctor-patient communication around the significance of persistent or new presenting problems and its potential impact on timely cancer diagnosis.Research designQualitative thematic analysis based on video recordings of doctor-patient consultations in primary care and follow-up interviews with patients and doctors. 80 video observations, 20 patient interviews and 7 doctor interviews across 7 general practices in England.ResultsWe found that timeliness of diagnosis may be adversely affected if doctors and patients do not come to an agreement about the presenting problem’s significance. ‘Disagreements’ may involve misaligned cognitive factors such as differences in medical knowledge between doctor and patient or misaligned emotional factors such as patients’ unexpressed fear of diagnostic procedures. Interviews suggested that conversations where the difference in views is either not recognised or stays unresolved may lead to unhelpful patient behaviour after the consultation (eg, non-attendance at specialist appointments), creating potential for diagnostic delay and patient harm.ConclusionsOur findings highlight how doctor-patient consultations can impact timely diagnosis when patients present with persistent or new problems. Misalignments were common and could go unnoticed, leaving gaps for potential to cause patient harm. These findings have implications for timely diagnosis of cancer and other serious disease because they highlight the complexity and fluidity of the consultation and the subsequent impact on the diagnostic process.

Background: Stage at diagnosis of breast cancer varies by socio-economic status (SES), with lower SES associated with poorer survival. We investigated associations between SES (indexed by education), and the likelihood of attributing breast symptoms to breast cancer.Method: We conducted an online survey with 961 women (47-92 years) with variable educational levels. Two vignettes depicted familiar and unfamiliar breast changes (axillary lump and nipple rash). Without making breast cancer explicit, women were asked 'What do you think this […..] could be?' After the attribution question, women were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a cancer avoidance statement ('I would not want to know if I have breast cancer').Results: Women were more likely to mention cancer as a possible cause of an axillary lump (64%) compared with nipple rash (30%). In multivariable analysis, low and mid education were independently associated with being less likely to attribute a nipple rash to cancer (OR 0.51, respectively). For axillary lump, low education was associated with lower likelihood of mentioning cancer as a possible cause (OR 0.58, 0.41-0.83). Although cancer avoidance was also associated with lower education, the association between education and lower likelihood of making a cancer attribution was independent.Conclusion: Lower education was associated with lower likelihood of making cancer attributions for both symptoms, also after adjustment for cancer avoidance. Lower likelihood of considering cancer may delay symptomatic presentation and contribute to educational differences in stage at diagnosis.