Gender inequalities across ethnicities in primary care cancer referrals: a scoping review protocol

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Early cancer diagnosis is associated with improved mortality and morbidity; however, studies indicate that women and individuals from ethnic minorities experience longer times to diagnosis and worse prognosis compared with their counterparts for various cancers. In countries with a gatekeeper healthcare system, such as the UK, most suspected cancer referrals are initiated in primary care. AIM: To understand the extent of evidence available on the relationship between primary care cancer referral pathways and cancer outcomes in relation to gender across different ethnic groups. This will identify research gaps and enable development of strategies to ease potential inequalities in cancer diagnosis. DESIGN & SETTING: A scoping review of articles written in English, based on the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will be used. METHOD: Electronic databases and private collections of the team members will be searched for studies. Two independent reviewers will carry out the study selection and data extraction. Based on Population (or participants), Concept, and Context (PCC) framework, this review will consider studies after year 2000, which explored the relationship between gender, across various ethnic groups, and cancer outcomes, following primary care cancer referral in countries with gatekeeper healthcare systems (UK, New Zealand, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Republic of Ireland, and Norway). Results will be presented as a narrative analysis. CONCLUSION: The results are expected to provide an overview of the discrepancies in primary care cancer referrals based on gender across ethnic groups, which will be crucial to define an appropriate range of strategies to ease any inequalities in primary healthcare cancer diagnosis.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.