Cited by 106Lung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Stigma as a barrier to diagnosis of lung cancer: patient and general practitioner perspectives

Open access
Scott, Nicola, Crane, Melanie, Lafontaine, Mayanne, Seale, Holly, Currow, David·2015·Primary Health Care Research & Development

Abstract

The prognosis for people with lung cancer may be worsened by delays in seeking medical help following the onset of symptoms. Previous research has highlighted that patients’ experiences of stigma and blame may contribute to these delays. This short report focuses on stigma as a barrier to diagnosis of lung cancer, from patient and general practitioner (GP) perspectives. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people diagnosed with lung cancer ( n =20) and with GPs ( n =10) in New South Wales, Australia. Participants’ experiences of blame and stigma, GPs preconceptions of lung cancer risk and the impact of anti-smoking messaging were explored. Participants reported experiencing stigma owing to a diagnosis of lung cancer. For some, the anticipation of stigma resulted in delays in seeking diagnosis and hence treatment. The sense of blame associated with a lung cancer diagnosis was also reflected in GP interviews. Successful tobacco control activities have increased societal awareness of lung cancer as smoking related and potentially contributed to the participants’ experiences of stigma. Removing blame associated with smoking is central to reducing delays in diagnosis of lung cancer.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1463423615000043

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scott, N., Crane, M., Lafontaine, M., Seale, H., & Currow, D.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Cancer Institute of New South Wales (AU)
Corresponding author
Scott, Nicola
Venue
Primary Health Care Research & Development
Published
2015-02-09
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
618-622
ISSN
  • 1463-4236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-1128
OpenAlex
W2158694927
Cited by
106
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Primary Health Care Research & Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Cambridge
  • Cancer Institute NSW
  • NSW Ministry of Health
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
lung cancer, stigma, blame, delayed diagnosis, help-seeking, general practitioners, patient experience, tobacco control, tobacco-related cancer, barriers to diagnosis
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Lung Neoplasms, Male, New South Wales, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Smoking, Stereotyping, Social Stigma, General Practitioners

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review