1. Tumour stage and implementation of standardised cancer patient pathways: a comparative cohort study
by Henry Jensen, Marie Louise Tørring, Morten Fenger-Grøn, Frede Olesen, Jens Overgaard, and Peter Vedsted
BJGP
Volume 66(647):e434-e443
May 26, 2016
©2016 by British Journal of General Practice

2. Flowchart showing patient identification, drop-out, and GP involvement.
Flowchart showing patient identification, drop-out, and GP involvement. The box on the left indicates exclusion of patients because of no GP involvement, whereas the box on the right indicates drop-out because of GP non-response. CPP = cancer patient pathways. ICD = International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.
Henry Jensen et al. Br J Gen Pract 2016;66:e434-e443
©2016 by British Journal of General Practice

3. Odds ratios and 95% CIs for patients with incident cancer with non-missing tumour stage diagnosed through a primary care route having local cancer during (blue) and after (black) CPP implementation compared with before CPP implementation.
Odds ratios and 95% CIs for patients with incident cancer with non-missing tumour stage diagnosed through a primary care route having local cancer during (blue) and after (black) CPP implementation compared with before CPP implementation. Values <1 indicate less likelihood of having local cancer compared with before CPP implementation. All values are adjusted for sex, age, cancer site, comorbidity, educational level, and household income. GI = gastrointestinal.
Henry Jensen et al. Br J Gen Pract 2016;66:e434-e443
©2016 by British Journal of General Practice

4. Odds ratios and 95% CIs for patients with incident cancer, with non-missing tumour stage diagnosed through a primary care route of having local cancer shown for CPP-referred patients (black) and non-CPP-referred patients (blue), both compared with all patie...
Odds ratios and 95% CIs for patients with incident cancer, with non-missing tumour stage diagnosed through a primary care route of having local cancer shown for CPP-referred patients (black) and non-CPP-referred patients (blue), both compared with all patients before CPP implementation. Values <1 indicate less likelihood of having local cancer compared with before CPP implementation. All values are adjusted for sex, age, cancer site, comorbidity, educational level, and household income. GI = gastrointestinal.
Henry Jensen et al. Br J Gen Pract 2016;66:e434-e443
©2016 by British Journal of General Practice

5. Odds ratios and 95% CIs of local cancer among CPP-referred patients compared with non-CPP-referred patients.
Odds ratios and 95% CIs of local cancer among CPP-referred patients compared with non-CPP-referred patients. Values <1 indicate that CPP-referred patients are less likely to have localised cancer than non-CPP-referred patients. All values are adjusted for sex, age, cancer site, comorbidity, educational level, and household income. GI = gastrointestinal.
Henry Jensen et al. Br J Gen Pract 2016;66:e434-e443
©2016 by British Journal of General Practice