Randomized trial of a patient-centered decision aid for promoting informed decisions about lung cancer screening: Implementation of a PCORI study protocol and lessons learned

Recruitment of patients, carers and members of the public to advisory boards, groups and panels in public and patient involved health research: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the distribution of and context of the recruitment strategies used, (2) explore the facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies, (3) distinguish the varying terminology for involvement (ie, panels, boards, individual) and (4) determine if the individual recruitment strategies used were to address issues of representation or bias.

DESIGN

A scoping review.

SETTING

This scoping review follows the framework by Peters et al. Seven electronic databases were explored including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO (conducted July 2021). The search strategy was codeveloped among the research team, PPI research experts and a faculty librarian. Two independent reviewers screened articles by title and abstract and then at full text based on predetermined criteria.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Explore recruitment strategies used, facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies. Identify terminology for involvement. Explore recruitment strategies used to address issues of representation or bias.

RESULTS

The final sample was from 51 sources. A large portion of the extracted empirical literature had a clinical focus (37%, n=13) but was not a randomised control trial. The most common recruitment strategies used were human networks (78%, n=40), such as word of mouth, foundation affiliation, existing networks, clinics or personal contacts. Within the reviewed literature, there was a lack of discussion pertaining to facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical considerations of recruitment strategies was apparent. Finally, 41% (n=21) of studies employed or proposed recruitment strategies or considerations to address issues of representation or bias.

CONCLUSION

We conclude with four key recommendations that researchers can use to better understand appropriate routes to meaningfully involve patients, carers and members of the public to cocreate the evidence informing their care.

Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid Designed for a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Guidelines recommend shared decision-making prior to initiating lung cancer screening (LCS). However, evidence is lacking on how to best implement shared decision-making in clinical practice.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of an LCS Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) on the quality of decision-making and LCS uptake.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at Veteran Affairs Medical Centers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and West Haven, Connecticut, from March 18, 2019, to September 29, 2021, with follow-up through July 18, 2022. Individuals aged 55 to 80 years with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years who were current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years were eligible to participate. Individuals with LCS within 15 months were excluded. Of 1047 individuals who were sent a recruitment letter or had referred themselves, 140 were enrolled.

Intervention

A web-based patient- and clinician-facing LCS decision support tool vs an attention control intervention.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary outcome was decisional conflict at 1 month. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict immediately after intervention and 3 months after intervention, knowledge, decisional regret, and anxiety immediately after intervention and 1 and 3 months after intervention and LCS by 6 months.

Results

Of 140 enrolled participants (median age, 64.0 [IQR, 61.0-69.0] years), 129 (92.1%) were men and 11 (7.9%) were women. Of 137 participants with data available, 75 (53.6%) were African American or Black and 62 (44.3%) were White; 4 participants (2.9%) also reported Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Mean decisional conflict score at 1 month did not differ between the LCSDecTool and control groups (25.7 [95% CI, 21.4-30.1] vs 29.9 [95% CI, 25.6-34.2], respectively; P = .18). Mean LCS knowledge score was greater in the LCSDecTool group immediately after intervention (7.0 [95% CI, 6.3-7.7] vs 4.9 [95% CI, 4.3-5.5]; P < .001) and remained higher at 1 month (6.3 [95% CI, 5.7-6.8] vs 5.2 [95% CI, 4.5-5.8]; P = .03) and 3 months (6.2 [95% CI, 5.6-6.8] vs 5.1 [95% CI, 4.4-5.8]; P = .01). Uptake of LCS was greater in the LCSDecTool group at 6 months (26 of 69 [37.7%] vs 15 of 71 [21.1%]; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of an LCSDecTool compared with attention control, no effect on decisional conflict occurred at 1 month. The LCSDecTool used in the primary care setting did not yield a significant difference in decisional conflict. The intervention led to greater knowledge and LCS uptake. These findings can inform future implementation strategies and research in LCS shared decision-making.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02899754.

The nature and impact of patient and public involvement in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research: A systematic review

Patient and public involvement can produce high-quality, relevant research that better addresses the needs of patients and their families. This systematic review investigated the nature and impact of patient and public involvement in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research. Two patient representatives were involved as members of the review team. Databases (Medline, EMBASE, Emcare, Involve Evidence Library) were searched for English-language studies published 1995-March 2022. Titles/abstracts were screened by two reviewers independently. For eligible studies, data were extracted on study characteristics, patient and public involvement (who, when, how, and impact on research outcomes), and reporting quality using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2-Short Form. Of 4095 articles screened, 58 were eligible. Most research was from the United States (81%) and examined cancer screening or prevention (82%). Community members/organisations/public were the most involved (71%); fewer studies involved patients and/or carers (14%). Over half reported a high-level of involvement (i.e. partner and/or expert involvement), although this declined in later stages of the research cycle, e.g. data analysis. Common positive impacts included improved study design, research methods and recruitment, although most papers (62%) did not describe methods to determine impact. Reporting quality was sub-optimal, largely due to failure to consider challenges. This review found that high-level involvement of patients and the public in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research is feasible and has several advantages. However, improvements are needed to encourage involvement across the research cycle, and in evaluating and reporting its impact.

A Veteran-Centric Web-Based Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening: Usability Analysis

BACKGROUND

Web-based tools developed to facilitate a shared decision-making (SDM) process may facilitate the implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS), an evidence-based intervention to improve cancer outcomes. Veterans have specific risk factors and shared experiences that affect the benefits and potential harms of LCS and thus may value a veteran-centric LCS decision tool (LCSDecTool).

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to conduct usability testing of an LCSDecTool designed for veterans receiving care at a Veteran Affairs medical center.

METHODS

Usability testing of the LCSDecTool was conducted in a prototype version (phase 1) and a high-fidelity version (phase 2). A total of 18 veterans and 8 clinicians participated in phase 1, and 43 veterans participated in phase 2. Quantitative outcomes from the users included the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the End User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) in phase 1 and the SUS, EUCS, and Patient Engagement scale in phase 2. Qualitative data were obtained from observations of user sessions and brief interviews. The results of phase 1 informed the modifications of the prototype for the high-fidelity version. Phase 2 usability testing took place in the context of a pilot hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial.

RESULTS

In the phase 1 prototype usability testing, the mean SUS score (potential range: 0-100) was 81.90 (SD 9.80), corresponding to an excellent level of usability. The mean EUCS score (potential range: 1-5) was 4.30 (SD 0.71). In the phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing, the mean SUS score was 65.76 (SD 15.23), corresponding to a good level of usability. The mean EUCS score was 3.91 (SD 0.95); and the mean Patient Engagement scale score (potential range 1 [low] to 5 [high]) was 4.62 (SD 0.67). The median time to completion in minutes was 13 (IQR 10-16). A thematic analysis of user statements documented during phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing identified the following themes: a low baseline level of awareness and knowledge about LCS increased after use of the LCSDecTool; users sought more detailed descriptions about the LCS process; the LCSDecTool was generally easy to use, but specific navigation challenges remained; some users noted difficulty understanding medical terms used in the LCSDecTool; and use of the tool evoked veterans' struggles with prior attempts at smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the development and use of this eHealth technology in the primary care clinical setting as a way to engage veterans, inform them about a new cancer control screening test, and prepare them to participate in an SDM discussion with their provider.

The development of a decision aid to support Hodgkin lymphoma survivors considering lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Decisions aids (DA) can support patients to make informed decisions about screening tests. This study describes the development and initial evaluation of a lung cancer screening (LCS) DA targeted towards survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

METHODS

A prototype decision aid booklet was developed and subsequently reviewed by a steering group who provided feedback. Revisions were made to produce the DA tested in this study. HL survivors were recruited to an online survey and/or focus groups. Lymphoma practitioners were invited to an interview study. In the online survey, decisional conflict scales and knowledge scales were completed before and after accessing the DA. The focus groups and interviews explored acceptability and comprehensibility and the decisional needs of stakeholders. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded. The framework method was used to analyse qualitative data.

RESULTS

38 HL survivors completed the online survey. Following exposure to the DA, knowledge of LCS and risk factors and decisional conflict scores (total score and subscale scores) improved significantly. 11 HL survivors took part in two focus groups (n = 5 and n = 6) and 11 practitioners were interviewed. Focus group and interview results: The language, format and length were considered acceptable. Both groups felt the DA was balanced and presented a choice. Icon arrays were felt to aid comprehension of absolute risk values and for some survivors, they reduced affective risk perceptions. Among survivors, the impact of radiation risk on decision making varied according to gender and screening interval, whilst practitioners did not anticipate it to be a major concern for patients. Both groups expressed that a screening offer could mitigate anxiety about lung cancer risk. As anticipated by practitioners, survivors expressed a desire to seek advice from their clinical team. Practitioners thought the DA would meet their informational needs regarding LCS  when supporting survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

The DA is considered acceptable by HL survivors and practitioners. The DA reduces decisional conflict and improves knowledge in HL survivors, suggesting that it would support HL survivors to make informed decisions when considering LCS in a future clinical trial.

Feasibility and acceptability of testing a menstrual-cycle timed smoking cessation intervention for women of reproductive age (Project Phase): Results of a pilot randomized control trial

INTRODUCTION

Menstrual phase influences cigarette smoking-related outcomes. Telephone-based cessation programs (e.g., quitlines) may incorporate the role of the menstrual cycle in an effort to tailor interventions for women.

PURPOSE

The goal of this preliminary randomized clinical trial was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of timing quit date to menstrual phase in women in a quitline setting.

METHODS

We recruited treatment-seeking women with regular menstrual cycles between the ages of 18-40 years. Participants were randomized to the follicular phase (FP; quit date set 6-8 days post onset of menses) or standard of care (SC; no menstrual timing of quit date). All participants received four weeks of nicotine replacement therapy transdermal patch concurrent with six weeks of telephone-based counseling. We explored self-reported and biochemically-verified seven-day point prevalence abstinence at end-of-treatment and three-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 119; FP: n = 58, SC: n = 61) were, on average, 33.4 years old and smoked 13.6 cigarettes/day. The median number of counseling sessions completed was 6 out of 6 available, and 66% of participants completed the intervention. Over 90% of participants reported they would recommend this study to friends/family. Cessation rates did not significantly vary by randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this preliminary trial indicate that timing quit date to FP is an acceptable and feasible approach to address smoking cessation in women of reproductive age. While we observed similar smoking cessation rates between groups, this preliminary study was not fully powered to determine efficacy. Therefore, the feasibility and acceptability results indicate that a fully-powered efficacy trial is warranted.

Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assess a patient's subjective appraisal of health outcomes from their own perspective. Despite hypothesised benefits that feedback  on PROMs can support decision-making in clinical practice and improve outcomes, there is uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of PROMs feedback.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PROMs feedback to patients, or healthcare workers, or both on patient-reported health outcomes and processes of care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, two other databases and two clinical trial registries on 5 October 2020. We searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We included randomised trials directly comparing the effects on outcomes and processes of care of PROMs feedback to healthcare professionals and patients, or both with the impact of not providing such information.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted meta-analyses of the results where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 116 randomised trials which assessed the effectiveness of PROMs feedback in improving processes or outcomes of care, or both in a broad range of disciplines including psychiatry, primary care, and oncology. Studies were conducted across diverse ambulatory primary and secondary care settings in North America, Europe and Australasia. A total of 49,785 patients were included across all the studies. The certainty of the evidence varied between very low and moderate. Many of the studies included in the review were at risk of performance and detection bias. The evidence suggests moderate certainty that PROMs feedback probably improves quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.26; 11 studies; 2687 participants), and leads to an increase in patient-physician communication (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52; 5 studies; 658 participants), diagnosis and notation (risk ratio (RR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.08; 21 studies; 7223 participants), and disease control (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41; 14 studies; 2806 participants). The intervention probably makes little or no difference for general health perceptions (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24; 2 studies, 552 participants; low-certainty evidence), social functioning (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; 15 studies; 2632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and pain (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.08; 9 studies; 2386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of PROMs feedback on physical functioning (14 studies; 2788 participants) and mental functioning (34 studies; 7782 participants), as well as fatigue (4 studies; 741 participants), as the certainty of the evidence was very low. We did not find studies reporting on adverse effects defined as distress following or related to PROM completion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PROM feedback probably produces moderate improvements in communication between healthcare professionals and patients as well as in diagnosis and notation, and disease control, and small improvements to quality of life. Our confidence in the effects is limited by the risk of bias, heterogeneity and small number of trials conducted to assess outcomes of interest. It is unclear whether   many of these improvements are clinically meaningful or sustainable in the long term. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, particularly studies which employ cluster designs and utilise techniques to maintain allocation concealment.

Factors Associated With Obtaining Lung Cancer Screening Among Persons Who Smoke

Background. Screening with low-dose computed tomography scans can reduce lung cancer deaths but uptake remains low. This study examines psychosocial factors associated with obtaining lung cancer screening (LCS) among individuals. Methods. This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial conducted with 13 state quitlines’ clients. Participants who met age and smoking history criteria were enrolled and followed-up for 6 months. Only participants randomized to the intervention group (a patient decision aid) were included in this analysis. A logistic regression was performed to identify determinants of obtaining LCS 6 months after the intervention. Results. There were 204 participants included in this study. Regarding individual attitudes, high and moderate levels of concern about overdiagnosis were associated with a decreased likelihood of obtaining LCS compared with lower levels of concern (high levels of concern, odds ratio [OR] 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04–0.65; moderate levels of concern, OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05–0.53). In contrast, higher levels of anticipated regret about not obtaining LCS and later being diagnosed with lung cancer were associated with an increased likelihood of being screened compared with lower levels of anticipated regret (OR 5.59, 95% CI 1.72–18.10). Other potential harms related to LCS were not significant. Limitations. Follow-up may not have been long enough for all individuals who wished to be screened to complete the scan. Additionally, participants may have been more health motivated due to recruitment via tobacco quitlines. Conclusions. Anticipated regret about not obtaining screening is associated with screening behavior, whereas concern about overdiagnosis is associated with decreased likelihood of LCS. Implications. Decision support research may benefit from further examining anticipated regret in screening decisions. Additional training and information may be helpful to address concerns regarding overdiagnosis.

Learning health systems using data to drive healthcare improvement and impact: a systematic review

Background

The transition to electronic health records offers the potential for big data to drive the next frontier in healthcare improvement. Yet there are multiple barriers to harnessing the power of data. The Learning Health System (LHS) has emerged as a model to overcome these barriers, yet there remains limited evidence of impact on delivery or outcomes of healthcare.

Objective

To gather evidence on the effects of LHS data hubs or aligned models that use data to deliver healthcare improvement and impact. Any reported impact on the process, delivery or outcomes of healthcare was captured.

Methods

Systematic review from CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Medline in-process and Web of Science PubMed databases, using learning health system, data hub, data-driven, ehealth, informatics, collaborations, partnerships, and translation terms. English-language, peer-reviewed literature published between January 2014 and Sept 2019 was captured, supplemented by a grey literature search. Eligibility criteria included studies of LHS data hubs that reported research translation leading to health impact.

Results

Overall, 1076 titles were identified, with 43 eligible studies, across 23 LHS environments. Most LHS environments were in the United States (n = 18) with others in Canada, UK, Sweden and Australia/NZ. Five (21.7%) produced medium-high level of evidence, which were peer-reviewed publications.

Conclusions

LHS environments are producing impact across multiple continents and settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06215-8.

Correction to: Development of Decisional Values Statements for Lung Cancer Screening among African American Smokers

The original version of this article unfortunately contained mistakes in Tables 1 and 3.

Development of Decisional Values Statements for Lung Cancer Screening Among African American Smokers

Lung cancer screening via low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been underutilized by high-risk current and former smokers since its approval in 2013. Further, lower use of other evidence-based cancer screening tests (e.g., colorectal cancer, breast cancer) has been noted among African Americans when compared with other racial and ethnic groups. Reasons for low uptake are multilayered but include the need for consideration of patients' personal values about the screening decision. The goal of the present study was to (1) identify positive and negative factors specific to lung cancer screening via LDCT and (2) develop statements to capture values about the screening test for use in a new measure of decisional values. Key informant interviews (n = 9) identified several benefits and risks of lung cancer screening that may be important to African American smokers. Based on these interviews, a pool of items with the values statements was administered to a convenience sample of 119 African Americans [aged 55-80 years, current or former smokers (who quit < 15 years), and without lung cancer]. An exploratory factor analysis revealed two components explaining 64% of the variance: cons of screening (e.g., "make you feel badly about your smoking history") and pros of screening (e.g., "lowering your risk of dying from lung cancer"). The final 12-item measure had very good internal consistency (α = 0.89 overall; α = 0.86 and 0.88 for subscales, respectively). This tool provides a promising values measure for lung cancer screening among African Americans and could inform future values clarification tools promoting informed and shared decision-making.

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making by Persons Who Smoke: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to the PDA video Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report.

RESULTS

Of 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). Feeling informed about their screening choice was reported by 117 of 234 participants (50.0%) using a PDA compared with 66 of 233 participants (28.3%) using EDU (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001); 159 of 234 participants (68.0%) using a PDA compared with 110 of 232 (47.4%) participants using EDU reported being clear about their values related to the harms and benefits of screening (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.60-3.51; P < .001). Participants using a PDA were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than participants using EDU at each follow-up assessment. Intentions to be screened and screening behaviors did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02286713.

Patient Perspectives on Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening, New Mexico, 2014

INTRODUCTION

National guidelines call for annual lung cancer screening for high-risk smokers using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). The objective of our study was to characterize patient knowledge and attitudes about lung cancer screening, smoking cessation, and shared decision making by patient and health care provider.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with patients with histories of heavy smoking who received care at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC Clinic) and at a comprehensive cancer center-affiliated chest clinic (Chest Clinic) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The interviews, conducted from February through September 2014, focused on perceptions about health screening, knowledge and attitudes about LDCT screening, and preferences regarding decision aids. We used a systematic iterative analytic process to identify preliminary and emergent themes and to create a coding structure.

RESULTS

We reached thematic saturation after 22 interviews (10 at the FQHC Clinic, 12 at the Chest Clinic). Most patients were unaware of LDCT screening for lung cancer but were receptive to the test. Some smokers said they would consider quitting smoking if their screening result were positive. Concerns regarding screening were cost, radiation exposure, and transportation issues. To support decision making, most patients said they preferred one-on-one discussions with a provider. They also valued decision support tools (print materials, videos), but raised concerns about readability and Internet access.

CONCLUSION

Implementing lung cancer screening in sociodemographically diverse populations poses significant challenges. The value of tobacco cessation counseling cannot be overemphasized. Effective interventions for shared decision making to undergo lung cancer screening will need the active engagement of health care providers and will require the use of accessible decision aids designed for people with low health literacy.