Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Apr;17(2):110-8.
doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.010113. Epub 2011 Oct 18.

The Andersen Model of Total Patient Delay: a systematic review of its application in cancer diagnosis

Affiliations

The Andersen Model of Total Patient Delay: a systematic review of its application in cancer diagnosis

Fiona Walter et al. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: Patient pathways to presentation to health care professionals and initial management in primary care are key determinants of outcomes in cancer. Reducing diagnostic delays may result in improved prognosis and increase the proportion of early stage cancers identified. Investigating diagnostic delay could be facilitated by use of a robust theoretical framework. We systematically reviewed the literature reporting the application of Andersen's Model of Total Patient Delay (delay stages: appraisal, illness, behavioural, scheduling, treatment) in studies which assess cancer diagnosis.

Methods: We searched four electronic databases and conducted a narrative synthesis. Inclusion criteria were studies which: reported primary research, focused on cancer diagnosis and explicitly applied one or more stages of the Andersen Model in the collection or analysis of data.

Results: The vast majority of studies of diagnostic delay in cancer have not applied a theoretical model to inform data collection or reporting. Ten papers (reporting eight studies) met our inclusion criteria: three studied several cancers. The studies were heterogeneous in their methods and quality. The review confirmed that there are clearly identifiable stages between the recognition of a symptom, first presentation to a health care professional, subsequent diagnosis and initiation of treatment. There was strong evidence to support the existence and importance of appraisal and treatment delay as defined in the Andersen Model, although treatment delay requires expansion. There was some evidence to support scheduling delay which may be contributed to by both patient and the health service. Illness delay was often difficult to distinguish from appraisal delay. It was less clear whether behavioural delay exists as a separate significant stage.

Conclusions: Greater consistency is required in the conduct and reporting of studies of diagnostic delay in cancer. We propose refinements to the Andersen Model which could be used to increase its validity and improve the consistency of reporting in future studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The General Model of Total Patient Delay as proposed by Andersen et al. (1995). Reproduced with permission from the British Journal of Social Psychology © The British Psychological Society
Figure 2
Figure 2
PRISMA Flow Diagram IBSS = International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
Figure 3
Figure 3
Model of pathways to treatment HCP = health care provider

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Berrino F, De Angelis R, Sant M, et al. Survival for eight major cancers and all cancers combined for European adults diagnosed in 1995–99: results of the EUROCARE-4 study. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:773–83 - PubMed
    1. Richards MA, Westcombe AM, Love SB, et al. Influence of delay on survival in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review. Lancet 1999;353:1119–26 - PubMed
    1. Allgar VL, Neal RD Delays in the diagnosis of six cancers: analysis of data from the National Survey of NHS Patients:Cancer. Br J Cancer 2005;92:1959–70 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Risberg T, Sorbye SW, Norum J, Wist EA Diagnostic delay causes more psychological distress in female than in male cancer patients. Anticancer Res 1996;16:995–99 - PubMed
    1. Hamilton W Five misconceptions in cancer diagnosis. Br J Gen Practice 2009;59:441–47 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types