Referring high-risk individuals for lung cancer screening: A systematic review of interventions with healthcare professionals

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

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

The GenoVA study: Equitable implementation of a pragmatic randomized trial of polygenic-risk scoring in primary care

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) hold promise for disease risk assessment and prevention. The Genomic Medicine at Veterans Affairs (GenoVA) Study is addressing three main challenges to the clinical implementation of PRSs in preventive care: defining and determining their clinical utility, implementing them in time-constrained primary care settings, and countering their potential to exacerbate healthcare disparities. The study processes used to test patients, report their PRS results to them and their primary care providers (PCPs), and promote the use of those results in clinical decision-making are modeled on common practices in primary care. The following diseases were chosen for their prevalence and familiarity to PCPs: coronary artery disease; type 2 diabetes; atrial fibrillation; and breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. A randomized clinical trial (RCT) design and primary outcome of time-to-new-diagnosis of a target disease bring methodological rigor to the question of the clinical utility of PRS implementation. The study's pragmatic RCT design enhances its relevance to how PRS might reasonably be implemented in primary care. Steps the study has taken to promote health equity include the thoughtful handling of genetic ancestry in PRS construction and reporting and enhanced recruitment strategies to address underrepresentation in research participation. To date, enhanced recruitment efforts have been both necessary and successful: participants of underrepresented race and ethnicity groups have been less likely to enroll in the study than expected but ultimately achieved proportional representation through targeted efforts. The GenoVA Study experience to date offers insights for evaluating the clinical utility of equitable PRS implementation in adult primary care.

Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature

Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.

Supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers: a scoping review

PURPOSE

To identify supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers.

METHODS

Experimental studies conducted among men with any urological cancer were eligible for inclusion. Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson), SocINDEX with Full Text, ERIC, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on 6 December 2022. No database limits were applied. The included studies were methodologically appraised. A narrative synthesis of the results was conducted.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were included with 10 categories of interventions identified. Over 300 outcomes were measured, and more than 100 instruments were used. Multicomponent interventions generally led to positive changes in physiological outcomes like body mass index, as well as exercise tolerance and quality of life. This change, however, was not sustained in the long term. Cognitive-behavioural interventions significantly improved psychological symptoms but seldom physical symptoms. Telephone and web-based interventions showed great promise in improving outcomes like depression, positive affect, negative affect, perceived stress, spiritual wellbeing and fatigue. Findings from physical activity/exercise-based interventions were promising for both, physical and psychological outcomes. Rehabilitative interventions were associated with significant improvements in quality of life, urinary symptoms and psychological symptoms, albeit in the short term. Mixed results were reported for nurse-led interventions, family-based interventions and nutritional interventions.

CONCLUSION

All but one study focused exclusively on prostate cancer. The included studies were significantly heterogeneous. Multicomponent, cognitive-behavioural, telephone and web-based, physical activity/exercise-based and rehabilitative interventions showed great promise in improving various outcomes. This improvement, however, was often short-lived.

A systematic review of interventions to recognise, refer and diagnose patients with lung cancer symptoms

Patients with lung cancer (LC) often experience delay between symptom onset and treatment. Primary healthcare professionals (HCPs) can help facilitate early diagnosis of LC through recognising early signs and symptoms and making appropriate referrals. This systematic review describes the effect of interventions aimed at helping HCPs recognise and refer individuals with symptoms suggestive of LC. Seven studies were synthesised narratively. Outcomes were categorised into: Diagnostic intervals; referral and diagnosis patterns; stage distribution at diagnosis; and time interval from diagnosis to treatment. Rapid access pathways and continuing medical education for general practitioners can help reduce LC diagnostic and treatment delay. Awareness campaigns and HCP education can help inform primary HCPs about referral pathways. However, campaigns did not significantly impact LC referral rates or reduce diagnostic intervals. Disease outcomes, such as LC stage at diagnosis, recurrence, and survival were seldom measured. Review findings highlight the need for longitudinal, powered, and controlled studies.