Variations in GPs' decisions to investigate suspected lung cancer: a factorial experiment using multimedia vignettes

Abstract

IntroductionLung cancer survival is low and comparatively poor in the UK. Patients with symptoms suggestive of lung cancer commonly consult primary care, but it is unclear how general practitioners (GPs) distinguish which patients require further investigation. This study examined how patients' clinical and sociodemographic characteristics influence GPs' decisions to initiate lung cancer investigations.MethodsA factorial experiment was conducted among a national sample of 227 English GPs using vignettes presented as simulated consultations. A multimedia-interactive website simulated key features of consultations using actors (‘patients’). GP participants made management decisions online for six ‘patients’, whose sociodemographic characteristics systematically varied across three levels of cancer risk. In low-risk vignettes, investigation (ie, chest X-ray ordered, computerised tomography scan or respiratory consultant referral) was not indicated; in medium-risk vignettes, investigation could be appropriate; in high-risk vignettes, investigation was definitely indicated. Each ‘patient’ had two lung cancer-related symptoms: one volunteered and another elicited if GPs asked. Variations in investigation likelihood were examined using multilevel logistic regression.ResultsGPs decided to investigate lung cancer in 74% (1000/1348) of vignettes. Investigation likelihood did not increase with cancer risk. Investigations were more likely when GPs requested information on symptoms that ‘patients’ had but did not volunteer (adjusted OR (AOR)=3.18; 95% CI 2.27 to 4.70). However, GPs omitted to seek this information in 42% (570/1348) of cases. GPs were less likely to investigate older than younger ‘patients’ (AOR=0.52; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.7) and black ‘patients’ than white (AOR=0.68; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.95).ConclusionsGPs were not more likely to investigate ‘patients’ with high-risk than low-risk cancer symptoms. Furthermore, they did not investigate everyone with the same symptoms equally. Insufficient data gathering could be responsible for missed opportunities in diagnosis.

Comorbid chronic diseases and cancer diagnosis: disease-specific effects and underlying mechanisms

“…The limited available information is only indirectly provided by a few interview studies and significant event audits. Studies examining cognitive processes, including vignette studies, may be particularly useful [135][136][137][138] .…”

Online patient simulation training to improve clinical reasoning: A feasibility randomised controlled trial

“…This measure comprised indicators of three cognitive biases that eCREST sought to influence: the unpacking principle, confirmation bias and anchoring. These were identified by previous clinical reasoning research (29)(30)(31). The unpacking principle refers to the tendency to not elicit the necessary information to make an informed judgement.…”

Challenges and opportunities from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) research summit on improving diagnosis: a proceedings review

“…Controlled experiments using case vignettes or standardized patients can be conducted to demonstrate the occurrence of implicit bias in diagnostic decision-making. A vignette-based UK study involving general practitioners showed disparities for diagnostic evaluation for lung cancer [17]. The same vignette-based approach may hold promise in testing strategies that mitigate the occurrence of bias and subsequent disparities.…”