Evaluating Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs About Lung Cancer Screening Using Crowdsourcing

Gamified Crowdsourcing as a Novel Approach to Lung Ultrasound Data Set Labeling: Prospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Machine learning (ML) models can yield faster and more accurate medical diagnoses; however, developing ML models is limited by a lack of high-quality labeled training data. Crowdsourced labeling is a potential solution but can be constrained by concerns about label quality.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine whether a gamified crowdsourcing platform with continuous performance assessment, user feedback, and performance-based incentives could produce expert-quality labels on medical imaging data.

METHODS

In this diagnostic comparison study, 2384 lung ultrasound clips were retrospectively collected from 203 emergency department patients. A total of 6 lung ultrasound experts classified 393 of these clips as having no B-lines, one or more discrete B-lines, or confluent B-lines to create 2 sets of reference standard data sets (195 training clips and 198 test clips). Sets were respectively used to (1) train users on a gamified crowdsourcing platform and (2) compare the concordance of the resulting crowd labels to the concordance of individual experts to reference standards. Crowd opinions were sourced from DiagnosUs (Centaur Labs) iOS app users over 8 days, filtered based on past performance, aggregated using majority rule, and analyzed for label concordance compared with a hold-out test set of expert-labeled clips. The primary outcome was comparing the labeling concordance of collated crowd opinions to trained experts in classifying B-lines on lung ultrasound clips.

RESULTS

Our clinical data set included patients with a mean age of 60.0 (SD 19.0) years; 105 (51.7%) patients were female and 114 (56.1%) patients were White. Over the 195 training clips, the expert-consensus label distribution was 114 (58%) no B-lines, 56 (29%) discrete B-lines, and 25 (13%) confluent B-lines. Over the 198 test clips, expert-consensus label distribution was 138 (70%) no B-lines, 36 (18%) discrete B-lines, and 24 (12%) confluent B-lines. In total, 99,238 opinions were collected from 426 unique users. On a test set of 198 clips, the mean labeling concordance of individual experts relative to the reference standard was 85.0% (SE 2.0), compared with 87.9% crowdsourced label concordance (P=.15). When individual experts' opinions were compared with reference standard labels created by majority vote excluding their own opinion, crowd concordance was higher than the mean concordance of individual experts to reference standards (87.4% vs 80.8%, SE 1.6 for expert concordance; P<.001). Clips with discrete B-lines had the most disagreement from both the crowd consensus and individual experts with the expert consensus. Using randomly sampled subsets of crowd opinions, 7 quality-filtered opinions were sufficient to achieve near the maximum crowd concordance.

CONCLUSIONS

Crowdsourced labels for B-line classification on lung ultrasound clips via a gamified approach achieved expert-level accuracy. This suggests a strategic role for gamified crowdsourcing in efficiently generating labeled image data sets for training ML systems.

Patient-Provider Lung Cancer Screening Discussions: An Analysis of a National Survey

BACKGROUND

The US Preventative Service Task Force (USPSTF) updated lung cancer screening (LCS) recommendations with annual low-dose CT (LDCT) in 2021. We aimed to assess prevalence of patient-provider discussion about LCS and determine its associated factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using data from Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 2022 cycle 6, 2 cohorts were evaluated: (1) potentially LCS-eligible, included participants at least 50 years old with a history of smoking and no prior history of lung cancer; (2) LCS-ineligible individuals based on age (eg, 18-49 years old), smoking history (eg, never smoked), or history of lung cancer. We assessed association of demographic, clinical, and social factors with LDCT discussion in a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Among potentially LCS-eligible patients, 19% had never heard of LDCT and only 9.4% had discussed LCS with their provider within the past year. Those who accessed online patient portals were more likely to discuss LCS with their healthcare provider (OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 1.67, 10.81; P, .003), as were respondents with a history of current (vs. former) smoking (OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.21, 8.19; P, .019). Among LCS-ineligible, 1.9% discussed LCS with their providers. Individuals with a personal history of cancer (OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 1.65, 27.19; P, .009), and those who discussed colorectal cancer screening (OR, 5.74; 95% CI, 1.63, 20.14; P, .007) were more likely to discuss LCS with their provider.

CONCLUSION

Despite updated USPSTF recommendations, rates of patient-provider LCS remains low. Multi-level interventions to address barriers to LCS are needed.

Patient Lung Cancer Screening Decisions and Environmental and Psychosocial Factors

Importance

Screening for lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography is associated with reduced lung cancer-specific mortality, but uptake is low in the US; understanding how patients make decisions to engage with lung cancer screening is critical for increasing uptake. Prior research has focused on individual-level psychosocial factors, but environmental factors (eg, historical contexts that include experiencing racism) and modifying factors-those that can be changed to make it easier or harder to undergo screening-also likely affect screening decisions.

Objective

To investigate environmental, psychosocial, and modifying factors influencing lung cancer screening decision-making and develop a conceptual framework depicting relationships between these factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multimethod qualitative study was conducted from December 2021 to June 2022 using virtual semistructured interviews and 4 focus groups (3-4 participants per group). All participants met US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening (ie, age 50-80 years, at least a 20 pack-year smoking history, and either currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years). Screening-eligible US participants were recruited using an online panel.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Key factors influencing screening decisions (eg, knowledge, beliefs, barriers, and facilitators) were the main outcome. A theory-informed, iterative inductive-deductive approach was applied to analyze data and develop a conceptual framework summarizing results.

Results

Among 34 total participants (interviews, 20 [59%]; focus groups, 14 [41%]), mean (SD) age was 59.1 (4.8) years and 20 (59%) identified as female. Half had a household income below $20 000 (17 [50%]). Participants emphasized historical and present-day racism as critical factors contributing to mistrust of health care practitioners and avoidance of medical procedures like screening. Participants reported that other factors, such as public transportation availability, also influenced decisions. Additionally, participants described psychosocial processes involved in decisions, such as perceived screening benefits, lung cancer risk appraisal, and fear of a cancer diagnosis or harmful encounters with practitioners. In addition, participants identified modifying factors (eg, insurance coverage) that could make receiving screening easier or harder.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this qualitative study of patient lung cancer screening decisions, environmental, psychosocial, and modifying factors influenced screening decisions. The findings suggest that systems-level interventions, such as those that help practitioners understand and discuss patients' prior negative health care experiences, are needed to promote effective screening decision-making.

Lung cancer statistics, 2023

Despite decades of declining mortality rates, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. This article examines lung cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, survival, and mortality using population-based data from the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Over the past 5 years, declines in lung cancer mortality became considerably greater than declines in incidence among men (5.0% vs. 2.6% annually) and women (4.3% vs. 1.1% annually), reflecting absolute gains in 2-year relative survival of 1.4% annually. Improved outcomes likely reflect advances in treatment, increased access to care through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and earlier stage diagnosis; for example, compared with a 4.6% annual decrease for distant-stage disease incidence during 2013-2019, the rate for localized-stage disease rose by 3.6% annually. Localized disease incidence increased more steeply in states with the highest lung cancer screening prevalence (by 3%-5% annually) than in those with the lowest (by 1%-2% annually). Despite progress, disparities remain. For example, Native Americans have the highest incidence and the slowest decline (less than 1% annually among men and stagnant rates among women) of any group. In addition, mortality rates in Mississippi and Kentucky are two to three times higher than in most western states, largely because of elevated historic smoking prevalence that remains. Racial and geographic inequalities highlight longstanding opportunities for more concerted tobacco-control efforts targeted at high-risk populations, including improved access to smoking-cessation treatments and lung cancer screening, as well as state-of-the-art treatment.

Knowledge, attitude, and practice of lung cancer screening and associated factors among high-risk population in Lanzhou, China: A cross-sectional study

This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of high-risk populations toward lung cancer screening in Lanzhou, China. Using convenience sampling, this cross-sectional study enrolled outpatients at high-risk for lung cancer at Lanzhou University Second Hospital between November 2022 and March 2023. An anonymous, self-administered online questionnaire was distributed to each participant via the Sojump website (https://www.wjx.cn/), comprising 40 items to collect demographic information and evaluate KAP toward lung cancer screening. The analyses were descriptive. A total of 577 participants (average age of 61.8 ± 7.1 years; 306 males) were included in the study. The participants' scores for KAP were 4.9 ± 2.2, 27.4 ± 3.0, and 7.0 ± 2.1, respectively. Participants with occupational exposure had significantly lower knowledge score (3.3 ± 2.4 vs 5.2 ± 2.1, P < .001), and practice score (5.6 ± 2.4 vs 7.3 ± 1.9, P < .001) than those without occupational exposure. Participants with smoking or passive smoking history had significantly higher attitude scores (27.6 ± 2.9 vs 25.8 ± 3.2, P < .001) and practice scores (7.1 ± 2.0 vs 6.5 ± 2.5, P = .014) than those without smoking history. A total of 360 (62.4%) participants endorsed the doctors' counseling on lung cancer screening, and 355 (61.5%) participants were willing to have screening for lung cancer as doctors advised. The study revealed that 390 (67.6%) participants identified low-dose computed tomography as the appropriate method for lung cancer screening, while 356 (61.7%) participants believed that X-rays were a reliable screening method for lung cancer. However, 365 (63.3%) participants thought that the treatment outcomes for early and late-diagnosed lung cancer were the same. Additionally, 416 (72.10%) participants believed that annual lung cancer CT scanning is unnecessary. On the other hand, 339 (58.8%) participants expressed concerns about exposure to radiation from CT scans, while 349 (60.5%) participants were worried about the cost of lung cancer screening. Only 142 (24.6%) participants reported having undergone annual lung cancer screening. The high-risk population had limited knowledge and insufficient attitude and practice toward lung cancer screening in Lanzhou, China.

Lung Cancer Screening in Head and Neck Cancer Patients: An Untapped Opportunity

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence demonstrating that lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases mortality, widespread implementation is lagging. Efforts to identify and recruit patients for LCS are in need. Candidacy for LCS is based on identifiable risk factors, many of which overlap with those of head and neck malignancies. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the prevalence of candidacy for LCS in the head and neck cancer patient population.

METHODS

We performed a review of anonymous surveys collected from patients who presented to a head and neck cancer clinic. Variables collected from these surveys included age, biologic sex, smoking history, and head and neck cancer history. Patients' candidacy for screening was determined, and descriptive analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 321 patient surveys were reviewed. Mean age was 63.7 years, and 195 (60.7%) were men. In this sample, 19 (5.91%) were current smokers, and 112 (34.9%) were former smokers, having quit an average of 19.4 years prior to completing the survey. Average pack-years was 29.3. Of the 321 patients surveyed, 60 (18.7%) would qualify for LCS using current guidelines. However, among those 60 patients who qualified for LCS, only 15 (25%) patients had been offered screening and only 14 (23.3%) had been screened.

CONCLUSIONS

We have importantly demonstrated both a substantial prevalence of candidacy for LCS in the head and neck cancer population as well as disappointingly low levels of screening utilization in this group of patients. We have identified this setting as a key patient population that ought to be targeted for information about and access to LCS.

Factors influencing the intention for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations for lung cancer

Objective

Utilizing low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening has proven effective in reducing lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals. This study aimed to investigate the health beliefs, knowledge of lung cancer, and cancer prevention behaviors in adults at high risk for lung cancer, with the goal of identifying predictors influencing their intention to undergo lung cancer screening.

Methods

The study utilized a descriptive cross-sectional design. Online questionnaires, including assessments of lung cancer screening health beliefs, knowledge of lung cancer, cancer prevention behaviors, intention to undergo lung cancer screening, and participant characteristics, were distributed to 186 individuals at high risk of lung cancer through a survey link. The data collection period spanned from April 26 to May 3, 2023. Analytical procedures encompassed descriptive statistics, independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson's correlations, and hierarchical multiple regression.

Results

The mean score for the intention to undergo lung cancer screening in our study was 3.66 out of 5. The regression model explaining the intention to undergo lung cancer screening accounted for 34.7% of the variance. Significant factors identified included stress level (β = 0.20, P = 0.002), perceived risk (β = 0.13, P = 0.040), self-efficacy (β = 0.35, P < 0.001), and engagement in cancer prevention behavior (β = 0.26, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Healthcare providers should implement psychological interventions and provide education about cancer screening for high-risk individuals, aiming to enhance their perceived risk and self-efficacy, thus promoting a higher likelihood of undergoing screening.

Update on Lung Cancer Screening Guideline

Lung cancer screening has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality and is recommended for individuals meeting age and smoking history criteria. Despite the expansion of lung cancer screening guidelines in 2021, racial/ethnic and sex disparities persist. High-risk racial minorities and women are more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer at younger ages and have lower smoking histories when compared with White and male counterparts, resulting in higher rates of ineligibility for screening. Risk prediction models, biomarkers, and deep learning may help refine the selection of individuals who would benefit from screening.

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.

Motivation, acceptability and attitudes toward lung cancer screening among persons who attend a tobacco cessation program: A multicenter survey in Italy

This study aimed to evaluate smoking cessation (SC) motivation and the acceptability of a lung cancer screening (LCS) program with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) among people who attend SC programs. A multicenter survey was conducted in the period January-December 2021 involving 197 people who attended group or individual SC courses in Reggio Emilia and Tuscany. Questionnaires, information sheets, and decision aids about the potential benefits and harms of LCS with LDCT were distributed at different time points during the course. The wish to protect own health (66%) was the most frequent reason given for quitting smoking, followed by cigarette dependence (40.6%) and current health problems (30.5%). Half of the participants (56%) considered periodic health checks including LDCT, as an advantageous activity. The great majority of participants were in favor of LCS (92%), with only 8% being indifferent, and no one was against these programs. Interestingly, those with sufficiently high smoking-related LC risk to be eligible for LCS and those attending the individual course were less in favor of LCS but also less concerned about the possible harms associated with LCS. The type of counseling was a significant predictor for both LCS acceptability and perceived harm of LCS. The favorable perception of LCS in people attending SC courses, despite the considerable preoccupation with potential harms, is an important finding of this study. Introducing a discussion on the benefits and harms of LCS in SC programs may prepare persons who smoke to make informed decisions on utilizing LCS.

Public Attitudes Towards Lung Cancer Screening in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective

Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, and it is ranked as the first cause of death in more than 100 countries around the world. The aim of this study was to explore the knowledge and attitude of the general population in Saudi Arabia toward lung cancer screening.

Methods

A cross-sectional study employing an online survey was conducted between November 2021 and February 2022 in Saudi Arabia. This study utilized a previously developed questionnaire instrument. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of positive attitude toward lung cancer screening.

Results

A total of 473 participants were involved in this study. The majority of the study participants (74.6%) reported that they are current smokers. Almost 31.5% of the study participants reported that if lung cancer is detected early, the person's chance of surviving is poor to very poor. The majority of the study participants reported that they would be willing to do tests to diagnose lung cancer if you were invited by the Ministry of Health or their doctor. Males, participants aged (24-34 years), and current smokers were more likely to have positive attitude towards lung cancer screening (p ≤ 0.05). On the other hand, patients aged 46 years and over and those with higher education had less positive attitude towards lung cancer screening (p ≤ 0.05).

Conclusion

This is the first study to look into the general public's attitudes toward lung cancer screening in Saudi Arabia. According to our findings, the majority of people believe that early detection of lung cancer can lead to improved results and have a favourable attitude toward lung cancer screening if it is indicated. Thus, incorporating lung cancer screening into the local guidelines in at-risk population is highly recommended and considering the launch of nation-wide lung cancer screening program is advised.

Facilitators and Barriers to Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening: A Framework-Driven Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to undertake a comprehensive systematic review to describe multilevel factors (barriers and facilitators) that may influence the implementation of low-dose chest computed tomography for lung cancer screening in the United States.

METHODS

Systematic literature searches were performed using 6 online databases and citation indexes for peer-reviewed studies, for articles published from 2013 to 2021. Studies were classified into 3 perspectives, based on the study's unit of analysis: system, health-care provider, and patient. Barriers and facilitators identified for each study included in our final review were then coded and categorized using the Consolidate Framework for Implementation Research domains.

RESULTS

At the system level, the 2 most common constructs were external policy and incentives and executing the implementation process. At the provider level, the most common constructs were evidence strength and quality of the intervention characteristics, patient needs and resources, implementation climate, and an individual's knowledge and beliefs about the intervention. At the patient level, the most common constructs were patient needs and resources, individual's knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, and engaging in the implementation process. These constructs can act as facilitators or barriers to lung cancer screening implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying the Consolidate Framework for Implementation Research domains and constructs to understand and specify factors facilitating uptake of lung cancer screening as well as cataloging the lessons learned from previous efforts helps inform the development and implementation processes of lung cancer screening programs in the community setting.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021247677.

Lost to follow up?: A qualitative study of why some patients do not pursue lung cancer screening

Although national guidelines recommend lung cancer screening for adults at high risk, only a small proportion of eligible adults in the US have been screened. The goal of this study was to understand barriers to screening among a specific but important population: patients who have been referred for screening, but who have not completed the test. We used semi-structured interviews to explore barriers to screening among patients at two academic, safety-net primary care practices. We included patients who had been referred for screening at least 6 months prior but who had not completed the test. Among interviewees (N = 16) a consistent theme was a lack of knowledge about the purpose and process of screening. Despite being referred for lung cancer screening, participants expressed that they knew little about how screening was performed or what it was intended to achieve. Preferences and values also played a role in why some participants did not return for screening. Our findings suggest that lack of knowledge about screening is an important barrier to use, as patients are unlikely to prioritize a test if they know little about it.

Motivation is not enough: A qualitative study of lung cancer screening uptake in Australia to inform future implementation

Introduction

Participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) trials and real-world programs is low, with many people at high-risk for lung cancer opting out of baseline screening after registering interest. We aimed to identify the potential drivers of participation in LCS in the Australian setting, to inform future implementation.

Methods

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals at high-risk of lung cancer who were eligible for screening and who had either participated (‘screeners’) or declined to participate (‘decliners’) in the International Lung Screening Trial from two Australian sites. Interview guide development was informed by the Precaution Adoption Process Model. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using the COM-B model of behaviour to explore capability, opportunity and motivation related to screening behaviour.

Results

Thirty-nine participants were interviewed (25 screeners; 14 decliners). Motivation to participate in screening was high in both groups driven by the lived experience of lung cancer and a belief that screening is valuable, however decliners unlike their screening counterparts reported low self-efficacy. Decliners in our study reported challenges in capability including ability to attend and in knowledge and understanding. Decliners also reported challenges related to physical and social opportunity, in particular location as a barrier and lack of family support to attend screening.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that motivation alone may not be sufficient to change behaviour related to screening participation, unless capability and opportunity are also considered. Focusing strategies on barriers related to capability and opportunity such as online/telephone support, mobile screening programs and financial assistance for screeners may better enhance screening participation. Providing funding for clinicians to support individuals in decision-making and belief in self-efficacy may foster motivation. Targeting interventions that connect eligible individuals with the LCS program will be crucial for successful implementation.

Psychological Traits and the Persuasiveness of Lung Cancer Screening Health Messages

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening remains underused despite its proven mortality benefit. Health systems have attempted to increase screening awareness through advertising. Psychological theories suggest that construal level (a personal orientation toward the big picture or the details) and regulatory focus (goals emphasizing acquisition of a good or avoidance of a bad outcome) play a key role in health advertising effectiveness. These theories have not been examined in a screen-eligible population.

METHODS

Using Amazon's crowdsourcing platform, Mechanical Turk, we identified screen-eligible individuals based on US Preventive Services Task Force criteria. We randomly assigned participants to see 1 of 4 screening advertisement images in a 2 (construal level: high vs low) × 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs prevention) between-subjects experimental design. We assessed willingness to undergo screening after the advertisement.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-one individuals responded to our study invitation (mean age, 61 years). We found that the high construal/promotion focus image led to a greater willingness to screen compared with images representing other psychological states (P = .04). Regarding the personality traits of our respondents, high construal/promotion focus was the most prevalent (40%) trait combination, whereas low construal/prevention focus was the least prevalent (17%).

CONCLUSIONS

The psychological focus of health-related messages affects an individual's willingness to undergo lung cancer screening. Individuals eligible for lung cancer screening are more persuaded by "big picture" messages describing the benefits of screening. Health systems may use this knowledge to design more effective patient-facing communications that lead to higher rates of screening.

Adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the lung cancer screening health belief scales

BACKGROUND

Health belief is an important factor affecting lung cancer screening in high-risk population, but the research based on Chinese cultural background is still insufficient. Therefore, we adapted the English version of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales (LCSHB) into the Chinese version (LCSHB-C) and examined its psychometric characteristics.

METHODS

After obtaining authorization from the original author, the LCSHB-C was adapted based upon Brislin's translation model. Using a variety of community-based recruitment methods, a total of 353 participants were recruited in Fuzhou, Fujian province, China to complete the questionnaires. We combined the classical test theory and item response theory to examine the psychometric properties of the LCSHB-C.

RESULTS

The Cronbach's alpha for the four subscales ranged from 0.83 ~ 0.93. The content validity index for the four subscales was ranged from 0.87 ~ 1.0. Confirmatory factor analysis supported each subscale structure model fit well. Rasch analysis results further validated the reliability and validity of the four subscales. The person reliability and separation index of each subscale ranged from 0.77 to 0.87 and 1.83 to 2.63, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The LCSHB-C is a reliable and valid instrument used to measure health beliefs related to lung cancer screening among those high-risk for lung cancer in China, which facilitates the development of lung cancer screening programs and promotes the "three early prevention strategies" of lung cancer (i.e.,early detection, early diagnosis and early treatment).

Applying Community-Engaged Intervention Mapping to Preparing Nurse Scientists

BACKGROUND

Preventing and managing chronic illness necessitates multilevel, theory-based interventions targeting behaviors, environmental factors, and personal determinants that increase risk for illness onset, greater burden, and poorer outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to provide the basis for multilevel interventions, describe community-engaged intervention mapping as an approach to designing theory-based interventions, and discuss potential benefits of applying community-engaged intervention mapping in preparing nurse scientists to build programs of interdisciplinary research in preventing and managing chronic illness.

METHODS

Community-engaged intervention mapping integrates two methodological approaches: intervention mapping and community-engaged research.

RESULTS

The six-step intervention mapping approach provides a logical structure for preparing nurse scientists in designing, adapting, and implementing multilevel, theory-based interventions. Community-engaged research approaches offer principles and direction for engaging patients, clinicians, community members, and other stakeholders throughout the research process. Integrating these methods retains the theoretical integrity of interventions; improves the relevance and timely completion of the research and its products; and enhances intended beneficiaries and the community's understanding, trust, and use of the results.

DISCUSSION

Potential benefits of preparation in community-engaged intervention mapping to nurse scientists and nursing science include explicit consideration of multilevel factors influencing health. Additional benefits include guidance for linking relevant constructs from behavior- and environment-oriented theories with evidence-based methods for affecting desired changes in care and quality of life outcomes. Moreover, enhancement of the theoretical fidelity of the intervention, explication of the mechanisms influencing change in the primary outcome, and improved relevance and feasibility of interventions for intended beneficiaries and potential adopters are other benefits.

Implementation of Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening Among the Privately Insured Nonelderly

Introduction. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires a written order of shared decision making (SDM) visit in its coverage policy for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening (LCS). With screening eligibility starting at age 55, private insurance plans will likely adopt this coverage policy. This study examined the implementation of SDM in the context of LCS among the privately insured. Methods. We constructed two study cohorts from MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database 2016-2017: a LDCT cohort who received LDCT for LCS and an SDM cohort who had an LCS-related SDM visit. For the LDCT cohort, we examined the trend and factors associated with the receipt of SDM within 3 months prior to LDCT. For the SDM cohort, we studied the trend and factors associated with LDCT within 3 months after an SDM visit. Results. For privately insured adults aged <64, 93% (19,681/21,084) of the LDCT cohort did not have a billing claim indicating SDM, although the uptake of SDM increased from 3.1% in 1Q2016 to 8.2% in 4Q2017 (P < 0.0001). For the SDM cohort, 46% (948/2048) did not have a claim for an LDCT for lung cancer screening in the 3 months after the SDM visit; this percentage increased from 29.5% in 1Q2016 to 61.8% in 3Q2017 (P < 0.0001). Limitations. Findings cannot be generalized to other nonelderly adults without private insurance. Additionally, the rate of SDM identified from claims may be underreported. Conclusions. We found a growing but low uptake of SDM among privately insured individuals who underwent LDCT. The higher rate of LDCT in the SDM cohort than the rate reported in national studies emphasized the importance of patient awareness.

Understanding the Associations between Smoking-Related Risk Perception, Interest in Quitting Smoking, and Interest in Lung Cancer Screening among Homeless Adult Smokers

Individuals experiencing homelessness smoke cigarettes at high rates, suffer a disproportionate incidence of lung cancer, but are unlikely to be screened to enhance early detection. Understanding correlates of lung cancer screening (LCS) interest within this vulnerable group may lend insight into prevention and treatment efforts and reduce their smoking-related morbidity and mortality. This study sought to understand how risk perception and interest in quitting smoking relate to LCS interest among homeless adults. Participants comprised a convenience sample of CO-verified current smokers (N = 310; 72.6% men, M_age = 43 + 11.7) from a homeless shelter in Dallas, TX. Participants self-reported risk perception, interest in quitting smoking, and interest in LCS. The average risk perception was 6.7 + 3.2 (range 0-10), 74.8% (n = 232) agreed or strongly agreed with interest in LCS, and 65.8% (n = 204) were interested in quitting smoking. Greater interest in quitting smoking, but not greater risk perception, was associated with greater interest in LCS (adjusted OR: 1.968, (95% CI: 1.213, 3.191), p = 0.006). Risk perception and interest in quitting smoking did not interact in their association with interest in LCS. Results suggest that homeless smokers with an interest in quitting may be receptive to LCS: a diagnostic tool by which cancers can be caught at earlier stages and prior to metastasis. However, few in the current sample would be eligible for LCS based on current guidelines; results have implications for altered screening practices among chronic smokers experiencing homelessness.