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

A study protocol for a mixed-method environmental scan of contextual factors that influence lung cancer screening adherence

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of lung cancer screening (LCS) to reduce lung cancer specific mortality is heavily dependent on adherence to recommended screening guidelines, with real-world adherence rates reported to be drastically lower than rates described in clinical trials. There is a dearth in the literature on reminder processes and clinical workflows used to address adherence and robust data is needed to fully understand which clinical set-ups, processes, and context enhance and increase continued LCS participation. This paper describes a protocol for an environmental scan of adherence and reminder processes that are currently used in LCS programs across the United States.

METHODS

This study will triangulate data using a 3-step explanatory sequential mixed methods design to describe mechanisms of current adherence and reminder systems within academic and community LCS programs to pinpoint clinic or system barrier and facilitator combinations that contribute to increased adherence. In step 1, surveys from a nationally representative sample of LCS programs will yield quantitative data about program structure, volume, and tracking/reminder processes and messages. After completion of the survey, interested LCS program personnel will be invited to participate in an in-depth interview (step 2) to explore current processes and interventions used for adherence at the participant and program level. Finally, in step 3, triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data will be completed through qualitative comparative analysis to identify combinations of components that affect higher or lower adherence.

DISCUSSION

This research advances the state of the science by filling a gap in knowledge about LCS program characteristics and processes associated with better adherence which can inform the development and implementation of interventions that are scalable and sustainable across a wide variety of clinical practice settings.

Knowledge and beliefs about lung cancer screening among Black individuals at high risk: a qualitative approach

Background

Despite its efficacy in reducing lung cancer (LC)-specific mortality by 20%, screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in eligible groups remains low (5-16%). Black individuals are more commonly affected by LC than other racial/ethnic groups in the United States (U.S.) but less likely to undergo LC screening (LCS). Our study aimed to explore the knowledge and beliefs of Black individuals at high risk regarding LCS.

Methods

Black individuals (n=17) who met the 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) LCS eligibility criteria were recruited in upstate New York. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio recorded, and transcribed to explore knowledge and beliefs that could influence the uptake of LCS. A qualitative thematic analysis method was used to identify and analyze themes within the data.

Results

We identified principal themes about LC and LCS. Although most participants reported that smoking was the major risk factor for LC, some participants placed more emphasis on other factors as the major risk factors for LC and de-emphasized the role of smoking. Most participants were not aware that screening for LC existed. Several barriers and facilitators for LCS were identified.

Conclusions

Awareness about LCS among Black individuals is low. Addressing barriers may help increase LCS rates among Black individuals, ultimately reducing their LC mortality. The findings from our study have important implications in designing more effective interventions involving community health workers and healthcare clinicians to increase LCS uptake among Black individuals at high risk.

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.

Concurrent factors associated with adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy among women with non-metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) reduces breast cancer morbidity and mortality, yet women often report suboptimal adherence. Though correlates of AET adherence are well-documented, few studies examine the relative importance of multi-level factors associated with adherence. The aim of this study was to identify factors most strongly associated with AET adherence in women with breast cancer.

METHODS

Between 10/2019 and 6/2021, women (N = 100) with non-metastatic, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, taking AET who reported AET-related distress enrolled into a clinical trial. Participants completed baseline measures, including the Medication Adherence Rating Scale-5, sociodemographics, and validated measures of anxiety, depression, medication-taking self-efficacy, social support, and treatment satisfaction. We created a latent factor and tested associations between sociodemographic, medical, and psychosocial characteristics and adherence. Associated predictors (p < .10) were entered into a structural model, which was corroborated via multivariate regression modeling.

RESULTS

A four-indicator latent adherence factor demonstrated good model fit. Participants (Mage = 56.1 years, 91% White) who were unemployed (B = 0.27, SE = 0.13, p = .046) and reported greater treatment convenience (B = 0.01, SE = 0.01, p = .046) reported greater adherence. Scores of participants who reported greater medication-taking self-efficacy (p = .097) and social support (p = .062) approached better adherence. Greater medication-taking self-efficacy (B = 0.08, SE = 0.02, p < .001) and being unemployed (B = 0.28, SE = .14, p = .042) were most strongly associated with greater adherence, independent of other predictors. Multivariate modeling confirmed similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication-taking self-efficacy and employment status were associated with AET adherence above other related factors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Enhancing patients' confidence in their ability to take AET for breast cancer may represent an important intervention target to boost adherence.

Strategies for Implementing an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Symptom Management Program Across Six Cancer Centers

Background

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)-based symptom management improves cancer patients' outcomes. However, implementation of ePROs is challenging, requiring technical resources for integration into clinical systems, substantial buy-in from clinicians and patients, novel workflows to support between-visit symptom management, and institutional investment.

Methods

The SIMPRO Research Consortium developed eSyM, an electronic health record-integrated, ePRO-based symptom management program for medical oncology and surgery patients and deployed it at six cancer centers between August 2019 and April 2022 in a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized stepped-wedge study. Sites documented implementation strategies monthly using REDCap, itemized them using the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) list and mapped their target barriers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inform eSyM program enhancement, facilitate inter-consortium knowledge sharing and guide future deployment efforts.

Results

We documented 226 implementation strategies: 35 'foundational' strategies were applied consortium-wide by the coordinating center and 191 other strategies were developed by individual sites. We consolidated these 191 site-developed strategies into 64 unique strategies (i.e., removed duplicates) and classified the remainder as either 'universal', consistently used by multiple sites (N=29), or 'adaptive', used only by individual sites (N=35). Universal strategies were perceived as having the highest impact; they addressed eSyM clinical preparation, training, engagement of patients/clinicians, and program evaluation. Across all documented SIMPRO strategies, 44 of the 73 ERIC strategies were addressed and all 5 CFIR barriers were addressed.

Conclusion

Methodical collection of theory-based implementation strategies fostered the identification of universal, high-impact strategies that facilitated adoption of a novel care-delivery intervention by patients, clinicians, and institutions. Attention to the high-impact strategies identified in this project could support implementation of ePROs as a component of routine cancer care at other institutions.

Co-designing a recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals: protocol for a mixed-methods study

Background

Lung cancer is a significant cause of cancer-related mortality globally, with early detection through screening critical to improving patient outcomes. However, recruiting high-risk individuals, particularly in deprived populations, for screening remains a considerable challenge. This study aims to co-design a targeted recruitment strategy for lung cancer screening, tailored to the specific needs and experiences of high-risk individuals, in collaboration with a Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) panel and expert stakeholders in Ireland.

Methods

We will employ a mixed-methods design guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex interventions. Our approach will integrate systematic review findings on screening participation interventions, evaluation of the recruitment strategy's feasibility in an Irish context, and the application of behavioural science frameworks. The target population includes individuals over 55 years, either current smokers or those who quit within the last year, who reside in highly deprived areas.

Conclusion

This co-designed recruitment strategy will combine evidence-based research, local context understanding, and stakeholder input to develop a solution that is both scientifically robust and tailored to the target population's needs. This patient-centred approach aims to increase the potential for successful implementation of lung cancer screening programs, thereby improving early detection and patient outcomes.

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.

Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review

There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8-18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.

Assessing the Needs of Those Who Serve the Underserved: A Qualitative Study among US Oncology Clinicians

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Clinical Oncology established the 'Supporting Providers Serving the Underserved' (SUS) Task Force with a goal to develop recommendations to support cancer clinicians who deliver care for populations at risk for cancer disparities. As a first step, the Task Force explored barriers and facilitators to equitable cancer care delivery.

METHODS

Clinicians across the United States who deliver care predominantly for low-income and racially and ethnically minoritized populations were identified based on lists generated by the Task Force and the Health Equity Committee. Through purposive sampling based on geographical location, clinicians were invited to participate in 30-60 min semi-structured interviews to explore experiences, barriers, and facilitators in their delivery of cancer care. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, imported into qualitative data management software, and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis revealed three major themes regarding barriers (lack of executive leadership recognition of resources; patient-related socio-economic needs; clinician burnout) and two major themes regarding facilitators (provider commitment, experiential training).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings reveal modifiable barriers and potential solutions to facilitate equitable cancer care delivery for populations at risk for cancer disparities.