Key Informants' Perspectives on Implementing a Comprehensive Lung Cancer Screening Program in a Safety Net Healthcare System: Leadership, Successes, and Barriers

Facilitators and Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening during Long COVID: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Study Synthesis of Qualitative Research

Background: Participation in targeted screening reduces lung cancer mortality by 30-60%, but screening is not universally available. Therefore, the study aimed to synthesize the evidence and identify facilitators and barriers to lung cancer screening participation globally. Methods: Two reviewers screened primary studies using qualitative methods published up to February 2023. We used two-phase synthesis consistent with a meta-study methodology to create an interpretation of lung cancer screening decisions grounded in primary studies, carried out a thematic analysis of group themes as specific facilitators and barriers, systematically compared investigations for similarities and differences, and performed meta-synthesis to generate an expanded theory of lung cancer screening participation. We used the Social Ecological Model to organize and interpret the themes: individual, interpersonal, social/cultural, and organizational/structural levels. Results: Fifty-two articles met the final inclusion criteria. Themes identified as facilitating lung cancer screening included prioritizing patient education, quality of communication, and quality of provider-initiated encounter/coordination of care (individual patient and provider level), quality of the patient-provider relationship (interpersonal group), perception of a life's value and purpose (cultural status), quality of tools designed, and care coordination (and organizational level). Themes coded as barriers included low awareness, fear of cancer diagnosis, low perceived benefit, high perceived risk of low-dose computerized tomography, concern about cancer itself, practical obstacle, futility, stigma, lack of family support, COVID-19 fear, disruptions in cancer care due to COVID-19, inadequate knowledge of care providers, shared decision, and inadequate time (individual level), patient misunderstanding, poor rapport, provider recommendation, lack of established relationship, and confusing decision aid tools (interpersonal group), distrust in the service, fatalistic beliefs, and perception of aging (cultural level), and lack of institutional policy, lack of care coordinators, inadequate infrastructure, absence of insurance coverage, and costs (and organizational status). Conclusions: This study identified critical barriers, facilitators, and implications to lung cancer screening participation. Therefore, we employed strategies for a new digital medicine (artificial intelligence) screening method to balance the cost-benefit, "workdays" lost in case of disease, and family hardship, which is essential to improve lung cancer screening uptake.

Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Referral Practices in Texas Organizations Serving People with Substance Use Disorders

For people at elevated risk for lung cancer, lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces lung cancer mortality. People with non-nicotine substance use disorders (SUDs) have elevated rates of smoking compared with the general population, highlighting them as a priority population for LCS consideration. Although research has shown LCS is underutilized, there is little literature to inform whether organizations that serve individuals with SUDs have existing clinical protocols surrounding LCS. In the current study, we examine the LCS eligibility and referral practices among these organizations. We conducted a statewide needs assessment survey in 2021 to discern how tobacco use was being addressed at Texas organizations that provide treatment or services to individuals with SUDs. Respondents were asked to report on their center’s LCS eligibility and referral practices. The analytic sample consists of 125 respondents who represented 23 federally qualified health centers, 29 global local mental health authorities (LMHAs), 12 substance use treatment programs in LMHAs, and 61 standalone substance use treatment centers. Very few respondents indicated that healthcare providers at their center made referrals to LCS for patients (8.8%); a few respondents indicated that their healthcare providers assessed patients’ eligibility for LCS but did not make referrals (3.2%). Intervention and implementation efforts are needed in these and other SUD healthcare settings to bolster organizational capacity and ensure that patients are being navigated to lung cancer screening at multiple touch points across the care continuum.

Assessing Differences in Social Determinants of Health Screening Rates in a Large, Urban Safety-Net Health System

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE

Previous studies have evaluated the implementation of standardized social determinants of health (SDOH) screening within healthcare settings, however, less is known about where screening gaps may exist following initial implementation based on facility characteristics. The objective of this study is to assess differences in screening rates for SDOH at a large, urban healthcare system.

METHODS

We used electronic health record data obtained from NYC Health + Hospitals primary care sites from 2019 to 2022. We calculated the mean number of visits that were SDOH screened by visit type, facility size, and the percentages of community characteristics. We conducted 4 logistic regression models predicting the odds of screening for any SDOH and for specific SDOH needs (housing, food, and medical cost assistance) based on facility type, facility size, and the socioeconomic characteristics of the surrounding community.

RESULTS

Among the 3 212 650 visits included, 16.90% were SDOH screened. Across all 4 multivariate logistic regression models predicting SDOH screening, a visit had significantly lower odds of being screened if based at a midsize or small facility, if it was a telemedicine visit, or based at a facility located in a zip-code with a higher percentage of SDOH needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found important differences in SDOH screening rates at a large, NYC-based health system based on size, visit type, and community level characteristics. In particular, our findings point to barriers related to facility size and telemedicine workflow that should be addressed to increase uptake of SDOH screening within different visits and facility types.

Contemporary Concise Review 2021: Pulmonary nodules from detection to intervention

The US Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) has updated screening criteria by expanding age range and reducing smoking history required for eligibility; the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST) data have shown that PLCOM2012 performs better for eligibility than USPSTF criteria. Screening adherence is low (4%-6% of potential eligible candidates in the United States) and depends upon multiple system and patient/candidate-related factors. Smoking cessation in lung cancer improves survival (past prospective trial data, updated meta-analysis data); smoking cessation is an essential component of lung cancer screening. Circulating biomarkers are emerging to optimize screening and early diagnosis. COVID-19 continues to affect lung cancer treatment and screening through delays and disruptions; specific operational challenges need to be met. Over 70% of suspected malignant lesions develop in the periphery of the lungs. Bronchoscopic navigational techniques have been steadily improving to allow greater accuracy with target lesion approximation and therefore diagnostic yield. Fibre-based imaging techniques provide real-time microscopic tumour visualization, with potential diagnostic benefits. With significant advances in peripheral lung cancer localization, bronchoscopically delivered ablative therapies are an emerging field in limited stage primary and oligometastatic disease. In advanced stage lung cancer, small-volume samples acquired through bronchoscopic techniques yield material of sufficient quantity and quality to support clinically relevant biomarker assessment.

Barriers and Facilitators to Lung Cancer Screening: A Physician Survey

Purpose

To describe barriers to lung cancer screening (LCS) among family medicine and general internal medicine primary care physicians (PCPs) and assess the association of barriers with discussion and referral for screening.

Design

Cross-sectional survey.

Subjects and Settings

Random sample of primary care physicians (PCPs) in California.

Measures

PCP practices for discussion and referral for LCS and ratings of LCS barriers.

Analysis

We performed exploratory factor analysis to identify four barrier constructs: (1) Physician Visit-Level Barriers to screening referral; (2) Physician System and Evidence Barriers; (3) Patient Cost Barrier; and (4) Other Patient Barriers. We then performed multivariable logistic regression adjusted for physician and practice characteristics to assess the association between the physician-reported barriers and whether PCPs discussed or referred for LCS.

Results

368 physicians responded (response rate 42%). Most worked in large metropolitan areas (80%) and large health systems (59%). After adjusting for physician and practice characteristics, we found that physician-reporting of System and Evidence Barriers was associated with lower odds of discussion or referral for LDCT (aOR .18, 95% CI 0.09–0.37), while physician-reported Visit-Level Barriers were associated with increased odds discussion or referral (aOR 2.65, 95% CI 1.30–5.04).

Conclusions

While physicians reported numerous barriers to LCS, we found that barriers were differentially associated with discussion or referral for screening. As new LCS guidelines broaden screening eligibility, it is critical to address these barriers to achieve higher rates of evidence-based LCS.