Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales

A pragmatic randomized clinical trial of multilevel interventions to improve adherence to lung cancer screening (The Larch Study): Study protocol

BACKGROUND

In real-world settings, low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) diminishes population-level benefits of reducing lung cancer mortality. We describe the Larch Study protocol, which tests the effectiveness of two patient-centered interventions (Patient Voices Video and Stepped Reminders) designed to address barriers and improve annual LCS adherence.

METHODS

The Larch Study is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted within Kaiser Permanente Washington. Eligible patients (target n = 1606) are aged 50-78 years with an index low-dose CT (LDCT) of the chest with negative or benign findings. With a 2 × 2 factorial-design, patients are individually randomized to 1 of 4 arms: video only, reminders only, both video and reminders, or usual care. The Patient Voices video addresses patient education needs by normalizing LCS, reminding patients when LCS is due, and encouraging social support. Stepped Reminders prompts primary care physicians to order patient's repeat screening LDCT and patients to schedule their scan. Intervention delivery is embedded within routine healthcare, facilitated by shared electronic health record components. Primary outcome is adherence to national LCS clinical guidelines, defined as repeat LDCT within 9-15 months. Patient-reported outcomes are measured via survey (knowledge of LCS, perception of stigma) approximately 8 weeks after index LDCT. Our mixed-methods formative evaluation includes process data, collected during the trial, and interviews with trial participants and stakeholders.

DISCUSSION

Results will fill an important scientific gap on multilevel interventions to increase annual LCS adherence and provide opportunities for spread and scale to other healthcare settings.

REGISTRATION

Trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05747443).

Unpacking the relationship between shared decision-making and decisional quality, decision to screen, and screening completion in lung cancer screening

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer screening is a complex and individualized decision. To understand how best to support patients in this decision, we must understand how shared decision-making is associated with both decisional and behavioral outcomes.

METHODS

Observational cohort study combining patient survey data with electronic health record data of lung screening-eligible patients who recently engaged in a shared decision-making discussion about screening with a primary care clinician.

RESULTS

Using multivariable analysis (n = 529), factors associated with higher lung cancer screening decisional quality include higher knowledge (OR = 1.33, p < .0001), lower perceived benefits (OR = 0.90, p = .0004), higher perceived barriers (OR = 1.07, p < .0001), higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.13, p < .0001), and higher levels of perceiving the discussion was shared (OR = 1.04, p < .0001). Factors associated with the patient's decision to screen include older age (OR = 1.12, p = .0050) and higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.11, p = .0407). Factors associated with screening completion included older age (OR = 1.05, p = .0050), higher knowledge (OR = 1.24, p = .0045), and higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.12, p = .0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Shared decision-making in lung cancer screening is a dyadic process between patient and clinician. As we continue to strive for high-quality patient-centered care, patient decision quality may be enhanced by targeting key factors such as high-quality knowledge, self-efficacy, and fostering a shared discussion to support patient engagement in lung cancer screening decisions.

The TELEhealth Shared decision-making Coaching and Navigation in Primary carE (TELESCOPE) intervention: a study protocol for delivering shared decision-making for lung cancer screening by patient navigators

Background

Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality but has potential harms for patients. A shared decision-making (SDM) conversation about LCS is required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for LCS reimbursement. To overcome barriers to SDM in primary care, this protocol describes a telehealth decision coaching intervention for LCS in primary care clinics delivered by patient navigators. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention and its implementation potential, compared with an enhanced usual care (EUC) arm.

Methods

Patients (n = 420) of primary care clinicians (n = 120) are being recruited to a cluster randomized controlled trial. Clinicians are randomly assigned to 1) TELESCOPE intervention: prior to an upcoming non-acute clinic visit, patients participate in a telehealth decision coaching session about LCS delivered by trained patient navigators and nurse navigators place a low-dose CT scan (LDCT) order for each TELESCOPE patient wanting LCS, or 2) EUC: patients receive enhanced usual care from a clinician. Usual care is enhanced by providing clinicians in both arms with access to a Continuing Medical Education (CME) webinar about LCS and an LCS discussion guide. Patients complete surveys at baseline and 1-week after the scheduled clinic visit to assess quality of the SDM process. Re-navigation is attempted with TELESCOPE patients who have not completed the LDCT within 3 months. One month before being due for an annual screening, TELESCOPE patients whose initial LCS showed low-risk findings are randomly assigned to receive a telehealth decision coaching booster session with a navigator or no booster. Electronic health records are abstracted at 6, 12 and 18 months after the initial decision coaching session (TELESCOPE) or clinic visit (EUC) to assess initial and annual LCS uptake, imaging results, follow-up testing for abnormal findings, cancer diagnoses, treatment, and tobacco treatment referrals. This study will evaluate factors that facilitate or interfere with program implementation using mixed methods.

Discussion

We will assess whether a decision coaching and patient navigation intervention can feasibly support high-quality SDM for LCS and guideline-concordant LCS uptake for patients in busy primary care practices serving diverse patient populations.

Trial Registration

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05491213) on August 4, 2022.

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.

Multilevel approaches to address disparities in lung cancer screening: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Low-dose computed tomography (lung cancer screening) can reduce lung cancer-specific mortality by 20-24%. Based on this evidence, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual lung cancer screening for asymptomatic high-risk individuals. Despite this recommendation, utilization is low (3-20%). Lung cancer screening may be particularly beneficial for African American patients because they are more likely to have advanced disease, lower survival, and lower screening rates compared to White individuals. Evidence points to multilevel approaches that simultaneously address multiple determinants to increase screening rates and decrease lung cancer burden in minoritized populations. This study will test the effects of provider- and patient-level strategies for promoting equitable lung cancer screening utilization.

METHODS

Guided by the Health Disparities Research Framework and the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model, we will conduct a quasi-experimental study with four primary care clinics within a large health system (MedStar Health). Individuals eligible for lung cancer screening, defined as 50-80 years old, ≥ 20 pack-years, currently smoking, or quit < 15 years, no history of lung cancer, who have an appointment scheduled with their provider, and who are non-adherent to screening will be identified via the EHR, contacted, and enrolled (N = 184 for implementation clinics, N = 184 for comparison clinics; total N = 368). Provider participants will include those practicing at the partner clinics (N = 26). To increase provider-prompted discussions about lung screening, an electronic health record (EHR) clinician reminder will be sent to providers prior to scheduled visits with the screening-eligible participants. To increase patient-level knowledge and patient activation about screening, an inreach specialist will conduct a pre-visit phone-based educational session with participants. Patient participants will be assessed at baseline and 1-week post-visit to measure provider-patient discussion, screening intentions, and knowledge. Screening referrals and screening completion rates will be assessed via the EHR at 6 months. We will use mixed methods and multilevel assessments of patients and providers to evaluate the implementation outcomes (adoption, feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity).

DISCUSSION

The study will inform future work designed to measure the independent and overlapping contributions of the multilevel implementation strategies to advance equity in lung screening rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04675476. Registered December 19, 2020.

Stakeholders' Voices of Lung Cancer Screening in Hong Kong: Study Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

Introduction: This study aims to (1) explore physicians' perceptions and experiences of lung cancer screening in Hong Kong, (2) evaluate physicians' readiness of implementing lung cancer screening in Hong Kong, (3) explore high-risk smokers' health beliefs of lung cancer and screening, (4) identify barriers and facilitators for high-risk Hong Kong smokers to screening for lung cancer, and (5) validate the Chinese Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scale in relation to high-risk smokers in Hong Kong. Methods and analysis: A mixed methods design will be used in this study. Individual qualitative interviews will be conducted with physicians who have experience with high-risk smokers. Physicians' perceptions and experiences of lung cancer screening, and their readiness to accept lung cancer screening in Hong Kong, will be gathered through the qualitative interviews. A semi-structured interview guide will be used in the qualitative interviews. In addition, a quantitative survey with qualitative questions will be conducted on high-risk smokers to investigate their health beliefs of lung cancer and screening and barriers and facilitators for them to screening lung cancer. A lung cancer screening health belief scale, sociodemographic questionnaire, smoking and lung cancer screening history questionnaire, lung cancer and screening knowledge questionnaire, lung cancer stigma scale, generalized anxiety disorder scale, patient health questionnaire-9, patients' medical trust scale and preferred lung cancer screening intervention delivery questionnaire will be conducted in the quantitative survey. Constant comparison and content analysis will be used to analyze the qualitative data. Descriptive data analysis, validity and reliability analysis, one-way analysis of variance and post hoc analyses will be used to analyze quantitative data. Discussions: This study explores physicians' and high-risk smokers' perceptions and experiences toward lung cancer screening in Hong Kong. Findings from this study can help healthcare providers and policy makers become aware of the stakeholder's voices. In addition, these findings can help to inform the design of future interventional lung cancer screening programs and provide a tool to measure Chinese high-risk smokers' health beliefs toward lung cancer screening. A major limitation of this mixed methods study is the amount of time taken to complete the overall study. Also, its complexity requires more collaboration and networking among researchers. Ethics and dissemination: This study has minimal risk to the participants. It will be submitted to the university IRB for ethical approval. Findings related to physicians' perceptions and experiences of lung cancer screening in Hong Kong, physicians' readiness of implementing lung cancer screening, high-risk smokers' health beliefs of lung cancer and screening, barriers, and facilitators for high-risk Hong Kong smokers to screening lung cancer will be disseminated in journals and conferences. The reliability and validity of the Chinese lung cancer screening health belief scale will be reported in methodological research journals.

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.

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.

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.

Lung cancer screening beliefs in Armenia

Introduction

In Armenia, an upper-middle income country, 93% of deaths are from non-communicable diseases and over half of the male population smokes. Armenia has more than double the global lung cancer incidence. Over 80% of lung cancer is diagnosed at stages III or IV. However, there is a significant mortality benefit in detecting early-stage lung cancer via screening with low-dose computed tomography.

Methods

This study employed a rigorously-translated, previously-validated survey based on the Expanded Health Belief Model to understand how Armenian male smokers' beliefs would affect lung cancer screening participation.

Results

Survey responses highlighted key health beliefs that would mediate screening participation. Most respondents felt they were at risk for lung cancer, but over 50% also believed their cancer risk was equivalent to (or less than) non-smokers' risk. Respondents also overwhelmingly agreed a scan could help detect cancer earlier, but fewer agreed early detection could reduce cancer mortality. Important barriers included absence of symptoms and costs of screening and treatment.

Discussion

Overall, the potential to reduce lung cancer-related deaths in Armenia is high, but there are a number of central health beliefs and barriers that would limit screening uptake and effectiveness. Improved health education, careful consideration of socioeconomic screening barriers, and appropriate screening recommendations may be useful in overcoming these beliefs.

Leveraging social media to increase lung cancer screening awareness, knowledge and uptake among high-risk populations (The INSPIRE-Lung Study): study protocol of design and methods of a community-based randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals, but uptake of lung screening remains low. Social media platforms have the potential to reach a large number of people, including those who are at high risk for lung cancer but who may not be aware of or have access to lung screening.

METHODS

This paper discusses the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that leverages FBTA to reach screening-eligible individuals in the community at large and intervene with a public-facing, tailored health communication intervention (LungTalk) to increase awareness of, and knowledge about, lung screening.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide important information to inform the ability to refine implementation processes for national population efforts to scale a public-facing health communication focused intervention using social media to increase screening uptake of appropriate, high-risk individuals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05824273).

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.

Using User-Centered Design to Facilitate Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study for Intervention Development

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, with the majority of lung cancer occurrence diagnosed after the disease has already metastasized. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography can diagnose early-stage disease, especially when eligible individuals participate in screening on a yearly basis. Unfortunately, annual adherence has emerged as a challenge for academic and community screening programs, endangering the individual and population health benefits of LCS. Reminder messages have effectively increased adherence rates in breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screenings but have not been tested with LCS participants who experience unique barriers to screening associated with the stigma of smoking and social determinants of health.

OBJECTIVE

This research aims to use a theory-informed, multiphase, and mixed methods approach with LCS experts and participants to develop a set of clear and engaging reminder messages to support LCS annual adherence.

METHODS

In aim 1, survey data informed by the Cognitive-Social Health Information Processing model will be collected to assess how LCS participants process health information aimed at health protective behavior to develop content for reminder messages and pinpoint options for message targeting and tailoring. Aim 2 focuses on identifying themes for message imagery through a modified photovoice activity that asks participants to identify 3 images that represent LCS and then participate in an interview about the selection, likes, and dislikes of each photo. A pool of candidate messages for multiple delivery platforms will be developed in aim 3, using results from aim 1 for message content and aim 2 for imagery selection. The refinement of message content and imagery combinations will be completed through iterative feedback from LCS experts and participants.

RESULTS

Data collection began in July 2022 and will be completed by May 2023. The final reminder message candidates are expected to be completed by June 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

This project proposes a novel approach to facilitate adherence to annual LCS through the development of reminder messages that embrace content and imagery representative of the target population directly in the design process. Developing effective strategies to increase LCS adherence is instrumental in achieving optimal LCS outcomes at individual and population health levels.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/46657.

Outcomes of Shared Decision-Making for Low-Dose Screening for Lung Cancer in an Academic Medical Center

Shared decision-making (SDM) helps patients weigh risks and benefits of screening approaches. Little is known about SDM visits between patients and healthcare providers in the context of lung cancer screening. This study explored the extent that patients were informed by their provider of the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening and expressed certainty about their screening choice. We conducted a survey with 75 patients from an academic medical center in the Southeastern U.S. Survey items included knowledge of benefits and harms of screening, patients' value elicitation during SDM visits, and decisional certainty. Patient and provider characteristics were collected through electronic medical records or self-report. Descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Pearson correlations between screening knowledge, value elicitation, and decisional conflict were calculated. The sample was predominately non-Hispanic White (73.3%) with no more than high school education (53.4%) and referred by their primary care provider for screening (78.7%). Patients reported that providers almost always discussed benefits of screening (81.3%), but infrequently discussed potential harms (44.0%). On average, patients had low knowledge about screening (score = 3.71 out of 8) and benefits/harms. Decisional conflict was low (score = - 3.12) and weakly related to knowledge (R= - 0.25) or value elicitation (R= - 0.27). Black patients experienced higher decisional conflict than White patients (score = - 2.21 vs - 3.44). Despite knowledge scores being generally low, study patients experienced low decisional conflict regarding their decision to undergo lung cancer screening. Additional work is needed to optimize the quality and consistency of information presented to patients considering screening.

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.

Measuring health literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of instruments from 1993 to 2021

BACKGROUND

It has been about 30 years since the first health literacy instrument was developed. This study aimed to review all existing instruments to summarize the current knowledge on the development of existing measurement instruments and their possible translation and validation in other languages different from the original languages.

METHODS

The review was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar on all published papers on health literacy instrument development and psychometric properties in English biomedical journals from 1993 to the end of 2021.

RESULTS

The findings were summarized and synthesized on several headings, including general instruments, condition specific health literacy instruments (disease & content), population- specific instruments, and electronic health. Overall, 4848 citations were retrieved. After removing duplicates (n = 2336) and non-related papers (n = 2175), 361 studies (162 papers introducing an instrument and 199 papers reporting translation and psychometric properties of an original instrument) were selected for the final review. The original instruments included 39 general health literacy instruments, 90 condition specific (disease or content) health literacy instruments, 22 population- specific instruments, and 11 electronic health literacy instruments. Almost all papers reported reliability and validity, and the findings indicated that most existing health literacy instruments benefit from some relatively good psychometric properties.

CONCLUSION

This review highlighted that there were more than enough instruments for measuring health literacy. In addition, we found that a number of instruments did not report psychometric properties sufficiently. However, evidence suggest that well developed instruments and those reported adequate measures of validation could be helpful if appropriately selected based on objectives of a given study. Perhaps an authorized institution such as World Health Organization should take responsibility and provide a clear guideline for measuring health literacy as appropriate.

Likely uptake of a future a lung cancer screening programme in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors: a questionnaire study

Background

Many Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors are at increased risk of subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN), including lung cancer, due to previous treatment for HL. Lung cancer screening (LCS) detects early-stage lung cancers in ever smokers but HL survivors without a heavy smoking history are ineligible for screening. There is a rationale to develop a targeted LCS. The aim of this study was to investigate levels of willingness to undergo LCS in HL survivors, and to identify the psycho-social factors associated with screening hesitancy.

Methods

A postal questionnaire was sent to 281 HL survivors registered in a long-term follow-up database and at increased risk of SMNs. Demographic, lung cancer risk factors, psycho-social and LCS belief variables were measured. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with lung cancer screening hesitancy, defined as those who would ‘probably’ or ‘probably not’ participate.

Results

The response rate to the questionnaire was 58% (n = 165). Participants were more likely to be female, older and living in a less deprived area than non-participants. Uptake (at any time) of breast and bowel cancer screening among those previously invited was 99% and 77% respectively. 159 participants were at excess risk of lung cancer. The following results refer to these 159. Around half perceived themselves to be at greater risk of lung cancer than their peers. Only 6% were eligible for lung cancer screening pilots aimed at ever smokers in the UK. 98% indicated they would probably or definitely participate in LCS were it available. Psycho-social variables associated with LCS hesitancy on multivariable analysis were male gender (OR 5.94 CI 1.64–21.44, p < 0.01), living in an area with a high index of multiple deprivation decile (deciles 6–10) (OR 8.22 CI 1.59–42.58, p < 0.05) and lower levels of self-efficacy (OR 1.64 CI 1.30–2.08 p < 0.01).

Conclusion

HL survivors responding to this survey were willing to participate in a future LCS programme but there was some hesitancy. A future LCS trial for HL survivors should consider the factors associated with screening hesitancy in order to minimise barriers to participation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12890-022-01959-3.

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).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13041-y.

Worry About the Future Health Issues of Smoking and Intention to Screen for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography

BACKGROUND

Early diagnosis of lung cancer is key to improving the long-term prognosis for many individuals. Still, utilization rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) remain low.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between worry about future health issues of smoking and intention to undergo recommended LCS with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) within the next 3 months.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted using the Qualtrics Panel to recruit adult smokers between ages 54 and 75 years, with no history of lung cancer, and at least 30-pack-year smoking history (n = 152). The survey gathered demographic, socioeconomic, and psychographic information, including intention to screen for lung cancer with LDCT and worry about the future health issues of smoking. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Approximately 43.0% were White, 21.7% were Black, and 60.0% were female. Most (86.0%) reported intentions to undergo recommended LCS with LDCT in the next 3 months. More than one-third (32.0%) reported moderately/very worried about the future health issues of smoking. Smokers who were moderately/very worried had 20% (P = .022) higher odds of reporting an intention to undergo LCS with LDCT than those who were not at all or a little worried.

CONCLUSIONS

Most eligible adults reported intentions to undergo LCS with LDCT. Our study also highlights sex, racial, and socioeconomic differences in LCS behavior.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The study findings provide an opportunity for healthcare providers to have in-depth discussions about the benefits of LCS with those who express worry about future health issues of smoking.

Cross-Cultural Modification Strategies for Instruments Measuring Health Beliefs About Cancer Screening: Systematic Review

Background

Modification is an important process by which to adapt an instrument to be used for another culture. However, it is not fully understood how best to modify an instrument to be used appropriately in another culture.

Objective

This study aims to synthesize the modification strategies used in the cross-cultural adaptation process for instruments measuring health beliefs about cancer screening.

Methods

A systematic review design was used for conducting this study. Keywords including constructs about instrument modification, health belief, and cancer screening were searched in the PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases. Bowling’s checklist was used to evaluate methodological rigor of the included articles. Results were reported using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) approach with a narrative method.

Results

A total of 1312 articles were initially identified in the databases. After removing duplications and assessing titles, abstracts, and texts of the articles, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria for the study. Based on Flaherty’s cultural equivalence model, strategies used in the modification process included rephrasing items and response options to achieve semantic equivalence; changing subjects of items, changing wording of items, adding items, and deleting items to achieve content equivalence; adding subscales and items and deleting subscales and items to achieve criterion equivalence. Solutions used to resolve disagreements in the modification process included consultation with experts or literature search, following the majority, and consultation with the author who developed the scales.

Conclusions

This study provides guidance for researchers who want to modify an instrument to be used in another culture. It can potentially give cross-cultural researchers insight into modification strategies and a better understanding of the modification process in cross-cultural instrument adaptation. More research could be done to help researchers better modify cross-cultural instruments to achieve cultural equivalence.

Cross-Cultural Instrument Adaptation and Validation of Health Beliefs About Cancer Screening: A Methodological Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The uptake of cancer screening is significantly associated with participants' health beliefs about cancer screening. Scales measuring health beliefs of cancer screening are available; however, the scales that were developed and validated for the US population may lack cultural appropriateness, which could compromise the reliability and validity of the scales when applied to different ethnic groups or populations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to summarize, analyze, and compare the methods used in the cross-cultural instrument adaptation and validation processes of health beliefs about cancer screening.

METHODS

A systematic review design with narrative methods was used. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, were searched.

RESULTS

A total of 18 articles were eligible. Results showed (1) the translation methods included committee translation and back translation, which were further refined by using professional translators, using professional interpreters and/or involving the first author, using bilingual individuals, and involving bilingual investigators; (2) the modification methods included embedded and afterward modification; and (3) the validation methods included testing construct validity, internal consistency reliability, item-total subscale correlations, test-retest reliability, content validity, predictive validity, and face validity.

CONCLUSIONS

Back translation and afterward modification were most frequently used for translating existing instruments to another language. Validity and reliability were most frequently established by construct validity, content validity, face validity, predictive validity, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, and item-total subscale correlation after instruments were translated.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinicians should evaluate the translation and adaptation process for translated versions of instruments before using them to provide culturally appropriate and sensitive care.

Factors Associated With Colorectal Cancer Screening Among First-Degree Relatives of Patients With Colorectal Cancer in China

BACKGROUND

First-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer have an elevated risk of colorectal cancer. However, the behavior and factors potential influencing first-degree relatives regarding colorectal cancer screening in China remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the screening behavior and related factors of first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design was applied, and 201 first-degree relatives participated from August 2018 to July 2019. Data were collected about demographic information, the "Colorectal Cancer Perceptions Scale," and screening behavior of first-degree relatives. Factors associated with screening behavior were identified using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Only 18.9% of first-degree relatives had participated in colonoscopy screening. Two Health Belief Model factors were the influencing factors of their participation in colorectal cancer screening. Higher possibility of colorectal cancer screening of first-degree relatives was associated with higher perceived susceptibility (odds ratio, 1.224; 95% confidence interval, 1.075-1.395) and lower perception of barriers (odds ratio, 0.880; 95% confidence interval, 0.820-0.944) of first-degree relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in colorectal cancer screening by first-degree relatives requires improvement; perceived susceptibility and perception of barriers were the most important predictors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Health professionals can enhance awareness of colorectal cancer susceptibility and address barriers to colorectal cancer screening among first-degree relatives at both individual and social levels.

Promoting Community Awareness of Lung Cancer Screening Among Disparate Populations: Results of the cancer-Community Awareness Access Research and Education Project

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the no. 1 cause of cancer death in the United States. Racial/ethnic minority and medically underserved populations suffer higher mortality than whites. Early detection through uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) among screening-eligible adults may mitigate high mortality. However, nearly 5 years since the publication of the US Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guideline, population awareness of LDCT is low, and only 4% of screening-eligible adults have undergone screening.

OBJECTIVE

This project used an education intervention to change participants' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about cancer risk factors and lung cancer and to connect eligible individuals to LDCT screening and tobacco cessation services.

INTERVENTIONS/METHODS

Community-engaged strategies were used to deliver a 4-week educational program in 13 community sites. Trained community health workers delivered the intervention. The intervention was guided by the Health Belief Model. Data were collected by survey to 481 participants; 93% were African American, the majority was female (73.1%), mean age was 58.3 (SD, 10.9) years.

RESULTS

There were knowledge increase regarding lung cancer screening (P = .001), a significant decrease in Perceived Severity and Perceived Barriers subscales (P = .001), and an overall increase in response to Perceived Benefits of lung cancer screening and Self-efficacy (P = .001). Fifty-four percent of tobacco users engaged in cessation; 38% of screening-eligible participants underwent LDCT screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Community health workers are effective in increasing awareness of lung cancer screening and affecting behavior change among disparate populations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Community health workers may have a clinical role in LDCT shared decision making.

Lung cancer screening: targeting the hard to reach-a review

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer death in the USA for both men and women, and also worldwide, it is the commonest cause of cancer death. The five-year survival rate for LC depends on the stage at which it is diagnosed. It is over 50% for cases detected in a localized stage but when the disease has spread to other organs, the five-year survival rate is only 5%. Unfortunately, only 16% of LC cases are diagnosed at an early stage. In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended annual LC screening with low dose chest computed tomography (CT) in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, based on the evidence from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the USA. When it comes to recruiting the target group for lung cancer screening (LCS), there are several barriers to overcome, such as whom exactly to include, where to find the target group, how to convince the target to participate or how to attract participants from all socioeconomic groups. The aim of this review is to find out what is already known about how the target group for LCS can be contacted and how participation can be improved, since uptake is a key issue in every (cancer) screening program. A review of the literature was conducted using ‘lung cancer screening and participation and uptake’ as search string. We searched in Web of Science and PubMed for reviews, systematic reviews and articles, published between 2015 and 2020. Compared to the target groups for screening in the long-running cancer screening programs of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer, there are several additional obstacles regarding defining, locating and recruiting of the target group for LCS. Shared decision-making is crucial when we want to reach the hard to reach for LCS and it should be improved, by educating primary care practitioners about LCS guidelines and providing them with the necessary tools, such as decision aids, to facilitate their job in this respect. Moreover, the information materials should be more tailored to specific groups who participate least.

Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Community-Based Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening is a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation that has been shown to decrease lung cancer-related mortality by approximately 20%. However, making the decision to screen, or not, for lung cancer is a complex decision because there are potential risks (eg, false positive results, overdiagnosis). Shared decision making was incorporated into the lung cancer screening guideline and, for the first time, is a requirement for reimbursement of a cancer screening test from Medicare. Awareness of lung cancer screening remains low in both the general and screening-eligible populations. When a screening-eligible person visits their clinician never having heard about lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Methods to effectively prepare patients for these clinical encounters and support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are needed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to estimate the effects of a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards that will prepare individuals and support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions.

METHODS

A pilot randomized controlled trial with a community-based sample of 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer was conducted. Approximately half of the participants (n=31) were randomized to view LungTalk-a web-based tailored computer program-while the other half (n=29) viewed generic information about lung cancer screening from the American Cancer Society. The outcomes that were compared included lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), and perception of being prepared to engage in a discussion about lung cancer screening with their clinician.

RESULTS

Knowledge scores increased significantly for both groups with greater improvement noted in the group receiving LungTalk (2.33 vs 1.14 mean change). Perceived self-efficacy and perceived benefits improved in the theoretically expected directions.

CONCLUSIONS

LungTalk goes beyond other decision tools by addressing lung health broadly, in the context of performing a low-dose computed tomography of the chest that has the potential to uncover other conditions of concern beyond lung cancer, to more comprehensively educate the individual, and extends the work of nontailored decision aids in the field by introducing tailoring algorithms and message framing based upon smoking status in order to determine what components of the intervention drive behavior change when an individual is informed and makes the decision whether to be screened or not to be screened for lung cancer.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/resprot.8694.

Effectiveness of a Patient Education Class to Enhance Knowledge about Lung Cancer Screening: a Quality Improvement Evaluation

Best practices to facilitate high-quality shared decision-making for lung cancer screening (LCS) are not well established. In our LCS program, patients are first referred to attend a free group education class on LCS, taught by designated clinician specialists, before a personal shared decision-making visit is scheduled. We conducted an evaluation on  the effectiveness of this class to enhance patient knowledge and shared decision-making about LCS. For quality improvement purposes, participants were asked to complete one-page surveys immediately before and after class to assess knowledge and decision-making capacity regarding LCS. To evaluate knowledge gained, we tabulated the distributions of correct, incorrect, unsure, and missing responses to eight true-false statements included on both pre- and post-class surveys and assessed pre-post differences in the number of correct responses. To evaluate decision-making capacity, we tabulated the distributions of post-class responses to items on decision uncertainty. From June 2017 to August 2018, 680 participants completed both pre- and post-class surveys. Participants had generally poor baseline knowledge about LCS. The proportion who responded correctly to each knowledge-related statement increased pre- to post-class, with a mean difference of 0.9 (paired t test, p < 0.0001) in the total number of correct responses between surveys. About 70% reported having all the information needed to make a screening decision. Our results suggest that a well-designed group education class is an effective system-level approach for initially educating and equipping patients with appropriate knowledge to make informed decisions about LCS.

Psychometric properties of the Breast Cancer Awareness Measurement among Chinese women: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To perform the cross-cultural adaption of the Breast Cancer Awareness Measurement (BCAM) and to test its psychometric properties among Chinese women.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in communities, schools and institutions in Changchun, Jilin Province, China.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 328 women voluntarily participated in and completed the Chinese version of the BCAM (C-BCAM), resulting in an effective response rate of 91.1%.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Psychometric properties, including item analysis (the extreme group comparison and item-total correlations), content validity (item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and scale-level content validity index (S-CVI)), construct validity (exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)) and internal consistency (Cronbach's α and test-retest reliability), were measured.

RESULTS

The C-BCAM has excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.90), with alpha coefficients of 0.88, 0.84 and 0.94 for its three domains. The test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.72. The I-CVI ranged from 0.86 to 1.00, and the S-CVI was 0.92. CFA showed that the three-factor model explained 51.56% of the total variance, with a good model fit (likelihood ratio χ²/df=1.86, incremental fit index=0.94, comparative fit index=0.94, goodness-of-fit index=0.84, adjusted goodness-of-fit index=0.80, standardised root mean square error of approximation=0.06 and root mean square residual=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The C-BCAM has satisfactory validity and reliability and is a culturally appropriate and reliable tool for evaluating breast cancer awareness among Chinese women. This reliable instrument can help researchers and health professionals evaluate women's knowledge about the symptoms and risk factors of breast cancer and identify their barriers to seeking medical help. It also helps healthcare providers identify women with poor breast cancer awareness and encourage them to perform screening practice.

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

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening, despite its proven mortality benefit, remains vastly underutilized. Previous studies examined knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs to better understand the reasons underlying the low screening rates. These investigations may have limited generalizability because of traditional participant recruitment strategies and examining only subpopulations eligible for screening. The current study used crowdsourcing to recruit a broader population to assess these factors in a potentially more general population.

METHODS

A 31-item survey was developed to assess knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding screening among individuals considered high risk for lung cancer by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. Amazon's crowdsourcing platform (Mechanical Turk) was used to recruit subjects.

RESULTS

Among the 240 respondents who qualified for the study, 106 (44%) reported knowledge of a screening test for lung cancer. However, only 36 (35%) correctly identified low-dose CT scanning as the appropriate test. A total of 222 respondents (93%) reported believing that early detection of lung cancer has the potential to save lives, and 165 (69%) were willing to undergo lung cancer screening if it was recommended by their physician. Multivariable regression analysis found that knowledge of lung cancer screening, smoking status, chronic pulmonary disease, and belief in the efficacy of early detection of lung cancer were associated with willingness to screen.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a minority of individuals at high risk for lung cancer are aware of screening, the majority believe that early detection saves lives and would pursue screening if recommended by their primary care physician. Health systems may increase screening rates by improving patient and physician awareness of lung cancer screening.

Understanding the decision to screen for lung cancer or not: A qualitative analysis

Background

Although new screening programmes with low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer have been implemented throughout the United States, screening uptake remains low and screening‐eligible persons' decisions to screen or not remain poorly understood.

Objective

To describe how current and former long‐term smokers explain their decisions regarding participation in lung cancer screening.

Design

Phone interviews using a semi‐structured interview guide were conducted to ask screening‐eligible persons to describe their decisions regarding screening with LDCT. The interviews were transcribed and analysed with conventional content analytic techniques.

Setting and participants

A subsample of 40 participants (20 who had screened and 20 who had not) were drawn from the sample of a survey study whose participants were recruited by Facebook targeted advertisements.

Results

The sample was divided into the following five groups based on their decisions regarding lung cancer screening participation: Group 1: no intention to be screened, Group 2: no deliberate consideration but somewhat open to being screened, Group 3: deliberate consideration but no definitive decision to be screened, Group 4: intention to be screened and Group 5: had been screened. Reasons for screening participation decisions are described for each group. Across groups, data revealed that screening‐eligible persons have a number of misconceptions regarding LDCT, including that a scan is needed only if one is symptomatic or has not had a chest x‐ray. A physician recommendation was a key influence on decisions to screen.

Discussion and conclusions

Education initiatives aimed at providers and long‐term smokers regarding LDCT is needed. Quality patient/provider communication is most likely to improve screening rates.

Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis

OBJECTIVE

Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour is crucial to identifying potentially modifiable factors for future intervention. Qualititative work has explored attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening from the perspective of the participant, but the theoretically grounded factors that influence screening-eligible individuals to screen are unknown. We tested an explanatory framework for lung cancer screening participation from the individual's perspective.

METHODS

Data were collected as part of a sequential explanatory mixed methods study, the quantitative component of which is reported here. A national purposive sample of 515 screening-eligible participants in the United States was recruited using Facebook-targeted advertisement. Participants completed surveys assessing constructs of the Conceptual Model for Lung Cancer Screening Participation. Path analysis was used to assess the relationships between variables.

RESULTS

Path analyses revealed that a clinician recommendation to screen, higher self-efficacy scores, and lower mistrust scores were directly associated with screening participation (p < 0.05). However, the link between screening behaviour and self-efficacy appeared to be fully mediated by fatalism, lung cancer fear, lung cancer family history, knowledge of lung cancer risk and screening, income, clinician recommendation, and social influence (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that medical mistrust, self-efficacy, and clinician recommendation were significant in the decision of whether to screen for lung cancer. These findings offer insight into potentially modifiable targets most appropriate on which to intervene. This understanding is critical to design meaningful clinician- and patient-focused interventions.

Design of a Community-Based Lung Cancer Education, Prevention, and Screening Program

Uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening is extremely low. Efforts to promote screening are warranted, especially among disparate groups such as racial/ethnic minorities and those of lower socioeconomic status. This article describes the design and implementation strategies of the ongoing cancer-Community Awareness Access Research and Education (c-CARE) program. The purpose of c-CARE is to increase community awareness of lung cancer screening through education. Community health workers were trained to implement the intervention in 12 community sites. The Health Belief Model guided the evaluation and intervention development methods. Aims include changing participants' knowledge, attitude, and beliefs related to lung cancer and increasing lung cancer early detection and prevention behaviors by identifying and connecting high-risk and/or nicotine-dependent individuals to LDCT screening and/or tobacco cessation services. If effective, these methods could model increased dissemination to other high-risk communities.

Current Smokers' Preferences for Receiving Cessation Information in a Lung Cancer Screening Setting

The purpose of this study was to identify current smokers' communication format preferences for receiving smoking cessation information in a lung cancer screening setting. A cross-sectional correlational design using survey methodology with 159 screening-eligible current smokers was the method used. Data was dichotomized (digital versus traditional preference) and analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression. Race was a statistically significant predictor with White participants having four times greater odds of reporting preference for a digital format for receiving smoking cessation information such as social media and/or supportive text messages (OR: 4.06; p = 0.004). Lung cancer screening is a new venue where current long-term smokers can be offered information about smoking cessation while they are engaging in a health-promoting behavior and potentially more likely to contemplate quitting. It is important to consider the communication format preference of current smokers to support cessation uptake. This study is the first to examine communication format preference of current smokers in the context of the lung cancer screening venue. Key differences noted by race support the need for further research examining multiple formats of communication with efforts to maximize options in the cancer screening setting.

Perceptions and Utilization of Lung Cancer Screening Among Smokers Enrolled in a Tobacco Cessation Program

BACKGROUND

Although lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients, most of those eligible are not referred for screening. Tobacco cessation counseling may be an opportune time to educate people about LCS, but little is known about the utilization and perceptions of LCS among people undergoing tobacco cessation treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We surveyed 185 current smokers, including 122 smokers between the ages of 55 and 80 years, who were attending a tobacco cessation class in a large integrated health care system regarding lung cancer risk perception and perceived benefits, harms, and barriers to LCS. We analyzed results according to whether participants had already undergone LCS and also whether they had undergone colorectal cancer screening.

RESULTS

A minority (18.9%) of participants had undergone LCS, and no participant who had not undergone LCS was familiar with LCS. Perceived lung cancer risk was high, and screening was believed to be beneficial. Common barriers included being a current smoker (56.6%), worrying about test results (52.5%), lack of knowledge about the test (50.8%), absence of symptoms of lung cancer (40.2%), costs of the study (35.2%), and worrying about being blamed for having smoked (33.6%). Perceived risk and barriers to LDCT were similar among people who had or had not previously undergone colorectal cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of LCS was low, and few smokers were aware of LDCT for LCS. A number of patient-related barriers to screening exist among smokers. Tobacco cessation counseling may be an opportune time to provide education regarding LCS with LDCT.

Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in a population sample

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Routine UK lung cancer screening is not yet available, thus understanding barriers to participation in lung screening could help maximize effectiveness if introduced.

Methods

Population‐based survey of 1007 adults aged 16 and over in Wales using random quota sampling. Computer‐assisted face‐to‐face interviews included demographic variables (age, gender, smoking, social group), four lung cancer belief statements and three lung screening attitudinal items. Determinants of lung screening attitudes were examined using multivariable regression adjusted for age, gender, social group and previous exposure to lung campaign messages.

Results

Avoidance of lung screening due to fear of what might be found was statistically significantly associated with negative lung cancer beliefs including fatalism (aOR = 8.8, 95% CI = 5.6‐13.9, P ≤ 0.001), low perceived value of symptomatic presentation (aOR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.5‐3.9, P ≤ 0.001) and low treatment efficacy (aOR = 0.3, CI = 0.2‐0.7, P ≤ 0.01).

Low perceived effectiveness of lung screening was significantly associated with fatalism (aOR = 6.4, 95% CI = 3.5‐11.7, P ≤ 0.001), low perceived value of symptom presentation (aOR = 4.9, 95% CI = 2.7‐8.9, P ≤ 0.001) and low treatment efficacy (aOR = 0.1, 95% CI = 0.1‐0.3, P ≤ 0.001). In contrast, respondents who thought lung screening could reduce cancer deaths had positive beliefs about lung cancer (aOR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2‐0.7, P ≤ 0.001) and its treatment (aOR = 6.1, 95% CI = 3.0‐12.6, P ≤ 0.001).

Conclusion

People with negative beliefs about lung cancer may be more likely to avoid lung screening. Alongside the introduction of effective early detection strategies, interventions are needed to modify public perceptions of lung cancer, particularly for fatalism.

Using social media for health research: Methodological and ethical considerations for recruitment and intervention delivery

As the popularity and diversity of social media platforms increases so does their utility for health research. Using social media for recruitment into clinical studies and/or delivering health behavior interventions may increase reach to a broader audience. However, evidence supporting the efficacy of these approaches is limited, and key questions remain with respect to optimal benchmarks, intervention development and methodology, participant engagement, informed consent, privacy, and data management. Little methodological guidance is available to researchers interested in using social media for health research. In this Tutorial, we summarize the content of the 2017 Society for Behavioral Medicine Pre-Conference Course entitled 'Using Social Media for Research,' at which the authors presented their experiences with methodological and ethical issues relating to social media-enabled research recruitment and intervention delivery. We identify common pitfalls and provide recommendations for recruitment and intervention via social media. We also discuss the ethical and responsible conduct of research using social media for each of these purposes.

Development and Usability Testing of a Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Study Protocol

Background

Awareness of lung cancer screening remains low in the screening-eligible population, and when patients visit their clinician never having heard of lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Therefore, methods to effectively support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are essential. To facilitate shared decision making about lung cancer screening, effective methods to prepare patients to have these important discussions with their clinician are needed.

Objective

Our objective is to develop a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument version 4.0 that will support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions.

Methods

Using a 3-phase process, we will develop and test a prototype of a computer-tailored decision support tool in a sample of lung cancer screening-eligible individuals. In phase I, we assembled a community advisory board comprising 10 screening-eligible individuals to develop the prototype. In phase II, we recruited a sample of 13 screening-eligible individuals to test the prototype for usability, acceptability, and satisfaction. In phase III, we are conducting a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer. Outcomes tested include lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), perception of being prepared to engage in a patient-clinician discussion about lung cancer screening, occurrence of a patient-clinician discussion about lung cancer screening, and stage of adoption for lung cancer screening.

Results

Phases I and II are complete. Phase III is underway. As of July 15, 2017, 60 participants have been enrolled into the study, and have completed the baseline survey, intervention, and first follow-up survey. We expect to have results by December 31, 2017 and to have data analysis completed by March 1, 2018.

Conclusions

Results from usability testing indicate that the computer-tailored decision support tool is easy to use, is helpful, and provides a satisfactory experience for the user. At the conclusion of phase III (pilot RCT), we will have preliminary effect sizes to inform a future fully powered RCT on changes in (1) knowledge about lung cancer and screening, (2) perceived risk of lung cancer, (3) perceived benefits of lung cancer screening, (4) perceived barriers to lung cancer screening, (5) self-efficacy for lung cancer screening, and (6) perceptions of being adequately prepared to engage in a discussion with their clinician about lung cancer screening.