The relationship between demands for lung cancer screening and the constructs of health belief model: a cross-sectional survey in Hefei, China

Development of an Electronic Health Record Self-Referral Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: One-Group Posttest Study

BACKGROUND

Approximately 14 million individuals in the United States are eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS), but only 5.8% completed screening in 2021. Given the low uptake despite the potential great health benefit of LCS, interventions aimed at increasing uptake are warranted. The use of a patient-facing electronic health record (EHR) patient portal direct messaging tool offers a new opportunity to both engage eligible patients in preventative screening and provide a unique referral pathway for tobacco treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to develop and pilot an EHR patient-facing self-referral tool for an established LCS program in an academic medical center.

METHODS

Guided by constructs of the Health Belief Model associated with LCS uptake (eg, knowledge and self-efficacy), formative development of an EHR-delivered engagement message, infographic, and self-referring survey was conducted. The survey submits eligible self-reported patient information to a scheduler for the LCS program. The materials were pretested using an interviewer-administered mixed methods survey captured through venue-day-time sampling in 5 network-affiliated pulmonology clinics. Materials were then integrated into the secure patient messaging feature in the EHR system. Next, a one-group posttest quality improvement pilot test was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 17 individuals presenting for lung screening shared-decision visits completed the pretest survey. More than half were newly referred for LCS (n=10, 60%), and the remaining were returning patients. When asked if they would use a self-referring tool through their EHR messaging portal, 94% (n=16) reported yes. In it, 15 participants provided oral feedback that led to refinement in the tool and infographic prior to pilot-testing. When the initial application of the tool was sent to a convenience sample of 150 random patients, 13% (n=20) opened the self-referring survey. Of the 20 who completed the pilot survey, 45% (n=9) were eligible for LCS based on self-reported smoking data. A total of 3 self-referring individuals scheduled an LCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretest and initial application data suggest this tool is a positive stimulus to trigger the decision-making process to engage in a self-referral process to LCS among eligible patients. This self-referral tool may increase the number of patients engaging in LCS and could also be used to aid in self-referral to other preventative health screenings. This tool has implications for clinical practice. Tobacco treatment clinical services or health care systems should consider using EHR messaging for LCS self-referral. This approach may be cost-effective to improve LCS engagement and uptake. Additional referral pathways could be built into this EHR tool to not only refer patients who currently smoke to LCS but also simultaneously trigger a referral to clinical tobacco treatment.

Screening behaviors of high-risk individuals for lung cancer: A cross-sectional study

Objective

To investigate current screening behaviors among high-risk individuals and analyse the factors that influence them.

Methods

A cross-sectional of 1652 high-risk individuals were recruited in Fujian Province, China from February to October 2022. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants were collected and other survey measures included a lung cancer and lung cancer screening knowledge questionnaire and a stage of adoption algorithm. Standardized measures on surveys were comprised of the: Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales, Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and the Patient Trust in the Medical Profession Scale. Factors associated with screening behavior were identified using binary logistic regression analysis.

Results

Lung cancer screening behavior stages were largely reported as Stage 1 and Stage 2 (64.4%). The facilitators of lung cancer screening included urban residence (OR = 1.717, 95% CI: 1.224-2.408), holding administrative positions (OR = 16.601, 95% CI: 2.118-130.126), previous lung cancer screening behavior (OR = 10.331, 95% CI: 7.463-14.302), media exposure focused on lung cancer screening (OR = 1.868, 95% CI: 1.344-2.596), a high level of knowledge about lung cancer and lung cancer screening (OR = 1.256, 95% CI: 1.185-1.332), perceived risk of lung cancer (OR = 1.123, 95% CI: 1.029-1.225) and lung cancer screening health beliefs (OR = 1.090, 95% CI: 1.067-1.113). A barrier to lung cancer screening was found to be social influence (influence of friends or family) (OR = 0.669, 95% CI: 0.465-0.964).

Conclusions

This study found a low participation rate in lung cancer screening and identified eight factors that affected lung cancer screening behaviors among high-risk individuals. Findings suggest targeted lung cancer screening programs should be developed based on identified influencing factors in order to effectively promote awareness and uptake of lung cancer screening.

Exploring the determinants of health-promoting behaviors among miners: A text mining and meta-analysis

The health-promoting behaviors of miners are of great significance to their physical and mental well-being. With a focus on enhancing their overall health, this study aimed to explore the determinants and influencing mechanisms of health-promoting behaviors in miners. Initially, the latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) model was utilized to extract topical keywords from literature over the last 23 years and to categorize the determinants based on integrating the health promotion model and the health belief model. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was performed based on 51 related empirical research to explore the mechanisms between determinants and health-promoting behaviors. The results indicated that (1) the factors influencing miners' health-promoting behaviors can be divided into four dimensions: physical environment, psychosocial environment, individual characteristics, and health beliefs. (2) Noise was negatively related to health-promoting behaviors, while protective equipment, health culture, interpersonal relationships, health literacy, health attitudes, and income were positively related to health-promoting behaviors. (3) Protective equipment and health literacy were positively related to perceived threat, whereas interpersonal relationships were positively related to perceived benefits. This study sheds light on the mechanisms influencing miners' health-promoting behaviors and could inform behavioral interventions in occupational health.

Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scale in Chinese Americans: A Methodological Study

Background and Purpose: The purpose of this study is to report the process of adapting the existing Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scale to be used in Chinese Americans. Methods: Guided by Flaherty et al.'s cross-cultural equivalency model, the methodology used in the adaptation process consists of four steps, including preliminary modification after a comprehensive literature review, forward and backward translation, expert review, and cognitive interviews among participants. Results: The modified culturally fitted Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scale included 57 items and 6 subscales, which proved highly reliable and valid through the expert review and participants' review. Conclusions: This study provided an example for a novice cross-cultural researcher to adapt an instrument to be used in another population with a different language. Further research is needed to work out a standard guideline for cross-cultural instrument adaptation.

Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scale

The purpose of this study was to verify the validity and reliability of the LCSHBS-K. This was a methodological study. The participants were adults aged between 50 and 74 years old, according to the selection criteria for lung cancer screening presented by the Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines in oncology recommendations. This study included 204 high-risk individuals who had not been diagnosed with lung cancer. The collected data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics software 26.0 version (IBM, New York, NY, USA). The reliability was analyzed by Cronbach's α for internal consistency, and the concurrent validity was analyzed by Pearson's correlation coefficients to identify the correlations with the health belief scale for Korean adults. To test the convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) were calculated using confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, the model fit for a tool was CMIN (χ²/df), SRMR, RMSEA, GFI, and CFI as a comparative fit index. The discriminant validity was tested based on AVE > r². The average age of the participants was 55.49 (SD = 5.07), the average smoking history was 29.55 (SD = 8.12) years, and the average number of cigarettes smoked per day was 12.18 (SD = 7.77). The goodness of fit met the criteria with GFI = 0.81 (criteria > 0.9), CMIN = 1.69 (criteria < 2), SRMR = 0.06 (criteria < 0.08), RMSEA = 0.058 (criteria < 0.06), and CFI = 0.91 (criteria > 0.9). The LCSHBS-K showed a statistically significant positive correlation with the HBS (r = 0.32 (p < 0.001)). Cronbach's α was 0.80 for all the items in the LCSHBS-K. Therefore, the validity and reliability of the LCSHBS-K tool were confirmed. Based on the results of this study, the Korean version of the LCSHBS tool was found to be suitable for screening lung cancer in high-risk groups in Korea.

The Influence of the Health Belief Model on the Decision to Get the COVID-19 Vaccine: An International Survey Study of College Students

To better prepare for a potential future pandemic, it is important to investigate factors that influenced responses to the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the present study was to investigate factors that influenced the decision to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected almost everyone throughout the world. Vaccines are a significant factor in managing a pandemic. As vaccines are developed, governments develop vaccine roll-out plans. Unfortunately, vaccine hesitancies can slow the implementation of any vaccine program. A question arises as to the factors that are associated with the decision to get vaccinated. The present study explored associations between vaccine hesitancy, and the Health Belief Model (HBM) in student samples from the Czech Republic, Israel, and the United States. From August, 2021 through December, 2021, an online survey was distributed in Czech, Hebrew, and English. A total of 447 participants completed the survey. A binomial logistic regression was conducted to ascertain the influence of perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits, and barriers on the likelihood that participants are vaccinated. Results revealed that the factors of perceived severity and perceived benefits explained 52.6% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in vaccination. An analysis of Variance (ANOVA) found significant differences between countries for the 4 HBM factors. Based on these findings, it is recommended that policymakers put forth added emphasis on the severity of a virus and the benefits associated with the vaccine. Further, since there appears to be variability between countries in perceptions of the virus, and associated vaccine, governments should consider factors within their own environment when developing a strategy to combat a pandemic. More specifically, government could explore their own strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats as they develop a pandemic strategy. Additional practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Spanish version of the lung cancer screening health belief scale

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe the translation and psychometric testing of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scale (LCSHBS) into Spanish.

METHODS

The English version of the LCSHBS was professionally translated in accordance with best practices in the translation of patient-reported outcome tools. The independent certified professional translator completed a forward translation of the LCSHBS from English to Spanish, followed by a review of the translated questionnaire by a certified Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Spanish-English bicultural expert, who reviewed the scale for accuracy.

RESULTS

Initial testing of the scales is valid and reliable, and supports the Spanish version of the LCSHBS (LCSHBS-S). Internal consistency reliability of the scales was supported with Cronbach's ranging from 0.81 to 0.96. Construct validity was established with confirmatory factor analysis and testing for differences between individuals who have and have not screened in theoretically proposed directions. These newly translated scales can help investigators expand this research into the large Spanish-speaking lung screening-eligible population as they develop and test critical behavioural interventions to increase lung cancer screening in the at-risk population.

CONCLUSIONS

Development of effective interventions to enhance shared decision-making about lung cancer screening between patients and providers must first identify factors influencing the individual's screening participation. Future efforts facilitating patient-provider conversations are better informed by understanding the perspective of the individual making the decision.

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung cancer screening: A mixed methods systematic review

Numerous factors contribute to the low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) programs. A theory-informed approach to identifying the obstacles and facilitators to LCS uptake is required. This study aimed to identify, assess, and synthesize the available literature at the individual and healthcare provider (HCP) levels based on a social-ecological model and identify gaps to improve practice and policy decision-making. Systematic searches were conducted in nine electronic databases from inception to December 31, 2020. We also searched Google Scholar and manually examined the reference lists of systematic reviews to include relevant articles. Primary studies were scored for quality assessment. Among 3938 potentially relevant articles, 36 studies, including 25 quantitative and 11 qualitative studies, were identified for inclusion in the review. Fifteen common factors were extracted from 34 studies, including nine barriers and six facilitators. The barriers included individual factors (n = 5), health system factors (n = 3), and social/environmental factors (n = 1). The facilitators included only individual factors (n = 6). However, two factors, age and screening harm, remain mixed. This systematic review identified and combined barriers and facilitators to LCS uptake at the individual and HCP levels. The interaction mechanisms among these factors should be further explored, which will allow the construction of tailored LCS recommendations or interventions for the Chinese context.

Perceived Susceptibility and Severity of COVID-19 on Prevention Practices, Early in the Pandemic in the State of Florida

Early in the pandemic and prior to the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, prevention measures were promoted to help inhibit the spread of the virus. To optimize adherence to prevention practices, it’s important to understand factors that may influence adherence. A study was conducted in the month of April, 2020, to explore the influence of perceptions of COVID-19 on prevention practices. The sample included members of a public social-media group focused on providing updates and information on COVID-19. A total of 719 individuals completed an online survey that assessed various aspects of COVID-19 which included experience, perceptions, and prevention practices. The perceptions of COVID-19 included perceived susceptibility of contracting the virus, and perceived potential severity if contracted COVID-19. To assess prevention practices, the survey included a 10-item prevention practices questionnaire that included items such as wearing a mask, and social distancing. Results revealed that perceived susceptibility of contracting COVID-19, and potential severity of COVID-19 were significant in predicting prevention practices. Further, results suggest that perceived potential severity predicts a greater proportion of the variance in prevention practices than susceptibility of contracting COVID-19. In addition, a moderation analysis revealed no interaction between perceived susceptibility and severity, which provides evidence that the variables do not influence one another. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Barriers and facilitators of lung cancer screening uptake: protocol of a mixed methods systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The global uptake rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT remain low. Since numerous factors contribute to the underuse of LCS, a theory-informed approach to identify and address the uptake of LCS barriers and facilitators is required. This study aims to document the methods which were used to identify, appraise, and synthesise the available qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence, addressing the barriers and facilitators at the individual and healthcare provider level, according to the social-ecological model, before identifying gaps to aid future practices and policies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The following databases will be searched: PubMed, Ovid (Journals @ Ovid Full Text and Ovid MEDLINE), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang database, from their creation up to 31 December 2020. Two reviewers will be involved in independently screening, reviewing, and synthesising the data; and calibration exercises will be conducted at each stage. Disagreements between the two reviewers will be resolved by arbitration by a third reviewer. The Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data from the Joanna Briggs Institute, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme criteria adapted for qualitative studies, and the 16-item Quality Assessment Tool (QATSDD) will be used in the quality assessment of primary studies. We will perform data synthesis using the Review Manager software, V.5.3.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is a review of published data and therefore needs no ethical approval. The findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020162802.

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).