Skip to main content
. 2015 Apr 23;15:308. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1317-7

Table 3.

Estimated differences in diagnostic interval (DI) (calendar days) during and after the implementation of CPPs compared to before the implementation (Model 1), and also according to referral route after the implementation: to a CPP (after-CPP) or not (after-no CPP) (Model 2) (N=11,640)

Model 11 Model 21after-group split by referral to a CPP or not
During vs. before After vs. before After-CPP vs. before After-no CPP vs. before After-CPP vs. during After-no CPP vs. during
Estimate (95% CI) Estimate (95% CI) Estimate (95% CI) Estimate (95% CI) Estimate (95% CI) Estimate (95% CI)
Percentile
25th −7 (−8;-5) −10 (−11;-8) −12 (−13;-11) −6 (−8;-5) −8 (−9;-7) 0 (−2;1)
50th −14 (−16;-11) −17 (−19;-15) −23 (−25;-21) −9 (−12;-7) −15 (−17;-12) 4 (1;7)
75th −22 (−27;-16) −27 (−34;-20) −46 (−51;-41) −11 (−21;-1) −32 (−37;-28) 10 (1;19)
90th −53 (−76;-30) −44 (−65;-23) −110 (−153;-67) −6 (−77;66) −80 (−126;-34) 48 (−49;145)

Estimates with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) are displayed for the 25th, the 50th, the 75th percentile and the 90th percentiles. Bold estimates indicate statistical significance at p = 0.05 level or less.

Model 1 reference: before implementation group, cohort, female, 45 years of age, cancer sites, no co-morbidity, high disposable income and high educational level.

Model 2 = model 1, but with ‘after group’ split by referral route (CPP).

1Adjusted for gender, age, cancer site, co-morbidity, educational level and disposable income.