Search

BackgroundInternational variations in cancer outcomes persist and may be influenced by differences in the accessibility and organisation of cancer patient pathways. More evidence is needed to understand to what extent variations in the structure of primary care referral pathways for cancer investigation contribute to differences in the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes in different countries.AimTo explore the variation in primary care referral pathways for the management of suspected cancer across different countries.Design and settingDescriptive comparative analysis using mixed methods across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) countries.MethodSchematics of primary care referral pathways were developed across 10 ICBP jurisdictions. The schematics were initially developed using the Aarhus statement (a resource providing greater insight and precision into early cancer diagnosis research) and were further supplemented with expert insights through consulting leading experts in primary care and cancer, existing ICBP data, a focused review of existing evidence on the management of suspected cancer, published primary care cancer guidelines, and evaluations of referral tools and initiatives in primary care.ResultsReferral pathway schematics for 10 ICBP jurisdictions were presented alongside a descriptive comparison of the organisation of primary care management of suspected cancer. Several key areas of variation across countries were identified: inflexibility of referral pathways, lack of a managed route for non-specific symptoms, primary care practitioner decision-making autonomy, direct access to investigations, and use of emergency routes.ConclusionAnalysing the differences in referral processes can prompt further research to better understand the impact of variation on the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes. Studying these schematics in local contexts may help to identify opportunities to improve care and facilitate discussions on what may constitute best referral practice.

This study aimed to explore refugee women's experiences of interpreters in healthcare in Aotearoa, New Zealand (NZ). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine women who arrived in NZ as refugees. Analysis involved a 'text in context' approach. An iterative and interpretive process was employed by engaging with participant accounts and field notes. The various meanings behind participants' experiences were unpacked in relation to the literature and the broader socio-cultural contexts in which these experiences occurred. Findings highlighted issues with professional and informal interpreters. These issues included cost, discrepancies in dialect, translation outside appointments, and privacy. Findings indicate ethical and practical implications of using interpreters in healthcare for refugee women. A step to achieving equitable healthcare for refugee women in New Zealand entails putting in place accessible and robust communicative infrastructure.