ABSTRACT
Patients with sarcoma often report prolonged time to diagnosis, which is attributed to the rarity of sarcoma and the low awareness of pre-diagnostic signs and symptoms. AIMS: To describe patients' experiences of pre-diagnostic signs/symptoms and pathways to diagnosis, including where help was sought, and the processes involved. METHODS: Mixed methods involving quantitative, qualitative and inductive thematic analyses using novel process mapping of patient journey data, as reported by the patients. We examined the time from symptom onset to first professional presentation (patient interval, PI), first consultation to diagnostic biopsy, first consultation to diagnosis (diagnostic interval) and first presentation to diagnosis (total interval). RESULTS: A total of 87 interviews were conducted over 5 months in 2017. Of these, 78 (40 males/38 females) were included. The sarcoma subtypes were bone (n = 21), soft tissue (n = 41), head and neck (n = 9) and gastro-intestinal (GIST; n = 7). Age at diagnosis was 13-24 (n = 7), 25-39 (n = 23), 40-64 (n = 34) and 65+ (n = 14) years. The median PI was 13 days (1-4971) and similar between sarcoma subtypes, with the exception of GIST (mPI = 2 days, (1-60). The longest mPI (31 days, range 4-762) was for those aged 13-24 years. The median diagnostic interval was 87.5 (range 0-5474 days). A total of 21 patients were misdiagnosed prior to diagnosis and symptoms were commonly attributed to lifestyle factors. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged times to diagnosis were experienced by the majority of patients in our sample. Further research into the evolution of pre-diagnostic sarcoma symptoms is required to inform awareness interventions.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Rapid qualitative studies conducted with patient and public involvement can help promote policy-relevant and efficient research. There is a need to understand the experiences of researchers, patients, and members of the public to guide the development of good practice and to determine the extent to which rapid qualitative research can be implemented in PPIE projects. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study to explore the experiences of research teams that carried out studies using rapid techniques with patient and public involvement. We carried out 26 interviews with researchers, coordinators, patients, carers, service users and members of the public. RESULTS: This study identified needs which related to practical and time constraints. Rapid qualitative research tends to be limited to certain PPIE groups, and particular phases of the research process. Study findings are rarely discussed with PPIE members. The educational needs of rapid qualitative research were also identified. Researchers and PPIE members considered three main issues: a lack of training on patient involvement for researchers, rapid qualitative research training for PPIE members, and the diversity of PPIE members. CONCLUSION: We found that rapid researchers were able to involve patients and members of the public in research despite time pressures. The challenges identified in this study can be used to plan future training programmes for researchers and PPIE panel members and develop strategies to recruit PPIE panel members from a wide range of backgrounds. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The research aim was to explore the experiences of those carrying out rapid qualitative studies with PPIE. As such, the participants of this study included patients, carers, service users and members of the public, who were interviewed individually. A lived experienced researcher and PPIE member for a hospital conducted the design, data collection and analysis of the study. The study brief was to interview researchers only. The lived-experience researcher initiated the inclusion of PPIE members as participants, therefore strengthening the study design. We shared the draft report with the PPIE participants for participant validation and to maintain a continuous feedback relationship. This led to addressing key issues in designing and involving PPIE members in more meaningful and equal ways. Whilst there is agreement on activities which centre on PPIE, there is no consensus on how to achieve these in high quality rapid qualitative studies.
