Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge, Perceptions, and Decision Making Among African Americans in Detroit, Michigan

Digital Interventions to Support Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) can reduce lung cancer mortality, but its adoption in the U.S. has been limited. Digital interventions have the potential to improve uptake of LCS. This systematic review aims to summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of digital interventions in promoting LCS.

METHODS

A systematic search of three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Medline) was conducted to identify studies published between January 2014 and May 2023. Studies were reviewed and abstracted between February 2023 and July 2023. Outcomes related to knowledge, decision-making and screening were measured. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools.

RESULTS

Of 1,979 screened articles, 30 studies were included in this review. Digital interventions evaluated included decision aids (n=20), electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions (n=7), social media campaigns and mobile applications (n=3). Decision aids were the most commonly studied digital interventions, with most studies showing improved knowledge (13/13) and reduced decisional conflict (7/9) but most did not show a substantial change in screening use. Fewer studies tested clinician-facing or multi-level interventions.

DISCUSSION

Digital interventions, particularly decision aids, have shown promise in improving knowledge and the quality of decision-making around LCS. However, few interventions have been shown to substantially alter screening behavior and few clinician-facing or multi-level interventions have been rigorously tested. Further research is needed to develop effective tools for engaging patients in LCS, to compare the efficacy of different interventions, and evaluate implementation strategies in diverse healthcare settings.

A Rapid Review of Interventions to Improve Care for People Who Are Medically Underserved with Multiple Sclerosis, Diabetic Retinopathy, and Lung Cancer

In the United States, patients with chronic conditions experience disparities in health outcomes across the care continuum. Among patients with multiple sclerosis, diabetic retinopathy, and lung cancer, there is a lack of evidence summarizing interventions to improve care and decrease these disparities. The aim of this rapid literature review was to identify interventions among patients with these chronic conditions to improve health and reduce disparities in screening, diagnosis, access to treatment and specialists, adherence, and retention in care. Using structured search terms in PubMed and Web of Science, we completed a rapid review of studies published in the prior five years conducted in the United States on our subject of focus. We screened the retrieved articles for inclusion and extracted data using a standard spreadsheet. The data were synthesized across clinical conditions and summarized. Screening was the most common point in the care continuum with documented interventions. Most studies we identified addressed interventions for patients with lung cancer, with half as many studies identified for patients with diabetic retinopathy, and few studies identified for patients with multiple sclerosis. Almost two-thirds of the studies focused on patients who identify as Black, Indigenous, or people of color. Interventions with evidence evaluating implementation in multiple conditions included telemedicine, mobile clinics, and insurance subsidies, or expansion. Despite documented disparities and a focus on health equity, a paucity of evidence exists on interventions that improve health outcomes among patients who are medically underserved with multiple sclerosis, diabetic retinopathy, and lung cancer.

Promoting Lung Cancer Screen Decision-Making and Early Detection Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Promoting lung cancer screening (LCS) is complex. Previous studies have overlooked that LCS behaviors are stage based and thus did not identify the characteristics of LCS interventions at different screening stages.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to explore the characteristics and efficacy of interventions in promoting LCS decision making and behaviors and to evaluate these interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a study search from the inception of each bibliographic database to April 8, 2023. The precaution adoption process model was used to synthesize and classify the evidence. The RE-AIM framework was used to evaluate the effectiveness of LCS programs. Heterogeneity tests and meta-analysis were performed using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

We included 31 studies that covered 4 LCS topics: knowledge of lung cancer, knowledge of LCS, value clarification exercises, and LCS supportive resources. Patient decision aids outperformed educational materials in improving knowledge and decision outcomes with a significant reduction in decision conflict (standardized mean difference, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, -1.15 to -0.47; P < .001). Completion rates of LCS ranged from 3.6% to 98.8%. Interventions that included screening resources outperformed interventions that used patient decision aids alone in improving LCS completion. The proportions of reported RE-AIM indicators were highest for reach (69.59%), followed by adoption (43.87%), effectiveness (36.13%), implementation (33.33%), and maintenance (9.68%).

CONCLUSION

Evidence from 31 studies identified intervention characteristics and effectiveness of LCS interventions based on different stages of decision making.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

It is crucial to develop targeted and systematic interventions based on the characteristics of each stage of LCS to maximize intervention effectiveness and reduce the burden of lung cancer.

Lung Cancer Screening in People With HIV: A Mixed-Methods Study of Patient and Provider Perspectives

INTRODUCTION

People with HIV are at higher risk of lung cancer; however, there is limited research on attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to lung cancer screening in people with HIV. The objective of this study was to understand the perspectives on lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers.

METHODS

Surveys of people with HIV and HIV-care providers were complemented by qualitative focus groups and interviews designed to understand the determinants of lung cancer screening in people with HIV. Participants were recruited through an academic HIV clinic in Seattle, WA. Qualitative guides were developed by integrating the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Tailored Implementation of Chronic Diseases checklist. Themes that emerged from thematic analyses of qualitative data were compared with surveys in joint displays. All study components were conducted between 2021 and 2022.

RESULTS

Sixty-four people with HIV completed surveys, and 43 participated in focus groups. Eleven providers completed surveys, and 10 were interviewed for the study. Themes from joint displays show overall enthusiasm for lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers, particularly with a tailored and evidence-based approach. Facilitators in this population may include longstanding engagement with providers and health systems and an emphasis on survivorship through preventive healthcare interventions. People with HIV may also face barriers acknowledged by providers, including a high level of medical comorbidities and competing issues such as substance abuse, mental health concerns, and economic instability.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals that people with HIV and their providers have overall enthusiasm toward screening. However, tailored interventions may be needed to overcome specific barriers, including complex decision making in the setting of medical comorbidity and patient competing issues.

The tobacco quitline setting as a teachable moment: The Educating Quitline Users About Lung (EQUAL) cancer screening randomized trial

Although lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose CT is recommended for high-risk individuals, screening adherence remains low. We conducted a randomized trial to compare two methods of providing LCS education to Maryland Tobacco Quitline (MTQ) callers in order to assess whether this setting may serve as a teachable moment for LCS-eligible individuals. MTQ callers (50-80 years, 20+ pack-years, prior LCS ≥12 months) completed the baseline and were randomized to the Print- or Web-based version of ShouldIScreen.com. Participants completed 1- and 4-month follow-up assessments to evaluate intervention engagement and LCS-related outcomes. Participants (Print = 152, Web = 146) were 61.7 (SD = 6.3) years old and reported 63.5 pack-years (SD = 36.0). Most identified as Black (54.2%), female (66.1%), having internet access (78.9%), completing other recommended cancer screenings (86.3%), and that they would undergo LCS if recommended by their provider (91.3%). By 4 months, significantly more Print (75.0%) than Web (61.6%) participants had read the materials (P = .01). Most reported the interventions contained "the right amount" of information (92.6%) and prepared them to talk with their doctor (57.2%). Regarding screening-related outcomes, 42.8% (Print) and 43.8% (Web) had scheduled or completed a low-dose CT scan or a shared decision-making visit (P = .86). In a racially diverse sample of LCS-eligible quitline callers, offering LCS educational materials resulted in high intervention engagement and screening-related appointments. As >20% did not have internet access, providing participants' preferred modality (web/print) may improve intervention engagement and knowledge. Improving LCS awareness represents an important opportunity to increase screening among eligible but unscreened quitline callers.

Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening

This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that SDM tools were more effective for improving knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing screening intentions among vulnerable populations compared to non-vulnerable populations. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed the complexities of clinicians' and vulnerable populations' preferences for an SDM tool in cancer screening. Vulnerable populations highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information, culturally tailored content, and appropriate communication strategies. Clinicians, on the other hand, highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into their medical systems for efficient use and can effectively guide their practice for cancer screening while considering patients' values. Considering the complexities of patients' and clinicians' preferences in SDM tool characteristics, fostering collaboration between patients and clinicians during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. This collaboration may ensure effective communication about the specific tool characteristics that best support the needs and preferences of both parties.

Outcomes of Shared Decision-Making for Low-Dose Screening for Lung Cancer in an Academic Medical Center

Shared decision-making (SDM) helps patients weigh risks and benefits of screening approaches. Little is known about SDM visits between patients and healthcare providers in the context of lung cancer screening. This study explored the extent that patients were informed by their provider of the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening and expressed certainty about their screening choice. We conducted a survey with 75 patients from an academic medical center in the Southeastern U.S. Survey items included knowledge of benefits and harms of screening, patients' value elicitation during SDM visits, and decisional certainty. Patient and provider characteristics were collected through electronic medical records or self-report. Descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Pearson correlations between screening knowledge, value elicitation, and decisional conflict were calculated. The sample was predominately non-Hispanic White (73.3%) with no more than high school education (53.4%) and referred by their primary care provider for screening (78.7%). Patients reported that providers almost always discussed benefits of screening (81.3%), but infrequently discussed potential harms (44.0%). On average, patients had low knowledge about screening (score = 3.71 out of 8) and benefits/harms. Decisional conflict was low (score = - 3.12) and weakly related to knowledge (R= - 0.25) or value elicitation (R= - 0.27). Black patients experienced higher decisional conflict than White patients (score = - 2.21 vs - 3.44). Despite knowledge scores being generally low, study patients experienced low decisional conflict regarding their decision to undergo lung cancer screening. Additional work is needed to optimize the quality and consistency of information presented to patients considering screening.

Interventions to improve lung cancer screening among racially and ethnically minoritized groups: A scoping review

Lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases lung cancer related mortality among high-risk people who smoke cigarettes and has been endorsed by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) since 2013. However, adoption of LCS has been limited, and disparities in LCS among racially and ethnically minoritized groups have become apparent. While recommendations to improve disparities in LCS have been made, there is a lack of information on how these recommendations have been implemented and their relative effectiveness in improving screening disparities. This scoping review addresses this knowledge gap by examining interventions that have been implemented to improve LCS among racially and ethnically minoritized groups in the United States. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO), and Scopus (via Elsevier), for articles from the period 1 January 2010 through 22 October 2021 was completed. Out of 17,045 references screened, only 11 studies describing an intervention to improve disparities in LCS were identified, underscoring the dearth of data on established interventions. The interventions discussed could be categorized into three groups -- patient level (n = 3), clinic/institution level (n = 3), and community level (n = 5) interventions. Of those studies reporting effectiveness data (n = 8), there was substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and their relative effectiveness. We found that interventions which streamlined the LCS process at the level of a single clinic or institution were the most effective in improving LCS. Community-level interventions that focused on engagement and education had the greatest potential to target racially and ethnically minoritized groups. Our study underscores the need for more robust research on addressing barriers to LCS by identifying effective patient, clinic, and community-level interventions to improve LCS disparities and the need for potential standardization of intervention effectiveness outcomes.