Developing and testing a brief clinic-based lung cancer screening decision aid for primary care settings

Patient Perspectives on a Patient-Facing Tool for Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Individuals with high risk for lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening, but there are associated risks as well as benefits. Shared decision-making (SDM) tools with personalized information may provide key support for patients. Understanding patient perspectives on educational tools to facilitate SDM for lung cancer screening may support tool development.

AIM

This study aimed to explore patient perspectives related to a SDM tool for lung cancer screening using a qualitative approach.

METHODS

We elicited patient perspectives by showing a provider-facing SDM tool. Focus group interviews that ranged in duration from 1.5 to 2 h were conducted with 23 individuals with high risk for lung cancer. Data were interpreted inductively using thematic analysis to identify patients' thoughts on and desires for a patient-facing SDM tool.

RESULTS

The findings highlight that patients would like to have educational information related to lung cancer screening. We identified several key themes to be considered in the future development of patient-facing tools: barriers to acceptance, preference against screening and seeking empowerment. One further theme illustrated effects of patient-provider relationship as a limitation to meeting lung cancer screening information needs. Participants also noted several suggestions for the design of technology decision aids.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that patients desire additional information on lung cancer screening in advance of clinical visits. However, there are several issues that must be considered in the design and development of technology to meet the information needs of patients for lung cancer screening decisions.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients, service users, caregivers or members of the public were not involved in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the data. However, clinical experts in health communication provided detailed feedback on the study protocol, including the focus group approach. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of patient expectations for lung cancer screening decisions and may inform future development of tools for SDM.

Designing a decision aid for cancer prevention: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Australian guidelines recommend people aged 50-70 years old consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The aim was to design sex-specific decision aids (DAs) with clinician and consumer input, including expected frequency trees (EFTs) to communicate the risks and benefits of taking aspirin.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians. Focus groups were conducted with consumers. The interview schedules covered ease of comprehension, design, potential effects on decision-making, and approaches to implementation of the DAs. Thematic analysis was employed; independent coding by 2 researchers was inductive. Themes were developed through consensus between authors.

RESULTS

Sixty-four clinicians were interviewed over 6 months in 2019. Twelve consumers aged 50-70 years participated in two focus groups in February and March 2020. The clinicians agreed that the EFTs would be helpful to facilitate a discussion with patients but suggested including an additional estimate of the effects of aspirin on all-cause mortality. The consumers felt favourable about the DAs and suggested changes to the design and wording to ease comprehension.

CONCLUSION

DAs were designed to communicate the risks and benefits of low-dose aspirin for disease prevention. The DAs are currently being trialled in general practice to determine their impact on informed decision-making and aspirin uptake.

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.

Women's Information Needs and Educational Preferences Regarding Lung Cancer Screening

Background: Physicians are less likely to discuss lung cancer screening (LCS) with women, and women have lower awareness of LCS availability. The objective of this qualitative study was to determine information needs, patient-provider communication barriers, and preferences for LCS education among women. Materials and Methods: Eight semistructured qualitative focus groups were conducted with 28 self-identified women meeting LCS eligibility criteria. Participants were recruited through a large health system, from a community-based LCS program, and through a national online database between October 2020 and March 2021. Focus groups were led by a trained moderator via Zoom. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis by investigators. Results: LCS decision-making influences included: (1) Health care provider recommendation; (2) Self-advocacy; (3) Insurance coverage and cost; (4) Family; and (5) Interest in early detection. Participants preferred video and print materials, available at physician's office or shared by physician, without scare tactics or shaming about smoking, use clear language, with diverse participants and images. Preferred content focused on: (1) Benefits of early detection; (2) Lung cancer definition, statistics, and risk factors; (3) Benefits of quitting smoking; (4) Demonstration or explanation of how LCS is done; and (5) Availability of other tests and potential harms of screening. Conclusion: Women in our study had limited awareness of LCS and their eligibility and wanted recommendation and support for LCS from their health care providers. We identified addressable information needs about lung cancer and the screening process that can be used to improve LCS uptake in women and shared decision-making processes.

LungCARE: Encouraging Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening-a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for individuals at high risk due to age and smoking history after a shared decision-making conversation. However, little is known about best strategies for incorporating shared decision-making, especially in a busy primary care setting.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a novel tool, Lung Cancer Assessment of Risk and Education (LungCARE) to guide LCS decisions among eligible primary care patients.

DESIGN

Pilot cluster randomized controlled trial of LungCARE versus usual care.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients of providers in a university primary care clinic, who met criteria for LCS.

INTERVENTION

Providers were randomized to LungCARE intervention or control. LungCARE participants completed a computer tablet-based video assessment of lung cancer educational needs in the waiting room prior to a primary care visit. Patient and provider both received a summary handout of patient concerns and responses.

MAIN MEASURES

All eligible patients completed baseline interviews by telephone. One week after the index visit, participants completed a follow-up telephone survey that assessed patient-physician discussion of LCS, referral to and scheduling of LCS, as well as LCS knowledge and acceptability of LungCARE. Two months after index visit, we reviewed patients' electronic health records (EHRs) for evidence of a shared decision-making conversation and referral to and receipt of LCS.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 66 participants completed baseline and follow-up visits (34: LungCARE; 32: usual care). Mean age was 65.9 (± 6.0). Based on EHR review, compared to usual care, LungCARE participants were more likely to have discussed LCS with their physicians (56% vs 25%; p = 0.04) and to be referred to LCS (44% vs 13%; p < 0.02). Intervention participants were also more likely to complete LCS (32% vs 13%; p < 0.01) and had higher knowledge scores (mean score 6.5 (± 1.7) vs 5.5 (± 1.4; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

LungCARE increased discussion, referral, and completion of LCS and improved LCS knowledge.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03862001.

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

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

Men's Perception of Being Invited for Prostate Cancer Testing and the Information About Its Pros and Cons-A Survey from Two Population-based Testing Programmes

Background

There is no national screening programme for prostate cancer in Sweden. Instead, population-based organised prostate cancer testing (OPT) projects are introduced to make information and testing more equal and effective.

Objective

To evaluate men's perception of being invited to OPT and of the information in the invitation letter, and whether their perception is influenced by educational level.

Design setting and participants

A questionnaire was sent out to men invited to OPT in 2020: 600 50-yr-old men in Region Västra Götaland and 1000 50-, 56-, and 62-yr-old men in Region Skåne.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Responses were evaluated on a Likert scale. The chi-square test was used to compare proportions.

Results and limitations

A total of 534 men (34%) responded. Almost all considered the OPT concept as very good (84%) or good (13%). Among men not previously undergone a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, a larger proportion with nonacademic (53%) than with academic education (41%) responded that the text about disadvantages was very clear (p = 0.03). A similar difference was observed for the text about advantages (68% vs 58%, p = 0.09). There was no association between education and searching for more information elsewhere. The low response rate is the main limitation.

Conclusions

Almost all responding men evaluating the invitation letter for OPT were positive about making a personal decision regarding whether or not to have a PSA test. Most were content with the brief information. Men with academic education were somewhat less likely to find the information very clear. This shows a need for further research about how best to describe the advantages and disadvantages of prostate cancer testing.

Patient summary

Almost all men who responded to a questionnaire to evaluate the invitation letter for organised prostate cancer testing were positive about the opportunity to make a personal decision regarding whether or not to have a prostate-specific antigen test.

Interventions Designed to Increase the Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening: An Equity-Oriented Scoping Review

Introduction

Participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) is lower in populations with the highest burden of lung cancer risk (through the social patterning of smoking behavior) and lowest levels of health care utilization (through structurally inaccessible care) leading to a widening of health inequities.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework to inform equitable access to LCS by illuminating knowledge and implementation gaps in interventions designed to increase the uptake of LCS. We comprehensively searched for LCS interventions (Ovid Medline, Excerpta Medica database, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Scopus from 2000 to June 22, 2021) and included peer-reviewed articles and gray literature published in the English language that describe an intervention designed to increase the uptake of LCS, charted data using our previously published tool and conduced a health equity analysis to determine the intended-unintended and positive-negative outcomes of the interventions for populations experiencing the greatest inequities.

Results

Our search yielded 3572 peer-reviewed articles and 54,292 pieces of gray literature. Ultimately, we included 35 peer-reviewed articles and one gray literature. The interventions occurred in the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy, focusing on shared decision-making, the use of electronic health records as reminders, patient navigation, community-based campaigns, and mobile computed tomography scanners. We developed an equity-oriented LCS framework and mapped the dimensions and outcomes of the interventions on access to LCS on the basis of approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability, and appropriateness of the intervention. No intervention was mapped across all five dimensions. Most notably, knowledge and implementation gaps were identified in dimensions of acceptability, availability, and affordability.

Conclusions

Interventions that were most effective in improving access to LCS targeted priority populations, raised community-level awareness, tailored materials for sociocultural acceptability, did not depend on prior patient engagement/registration with the health care system, proactively considered costs related to participation, and enhanced utilization through informed decision-making.

Interventions to improve lung cancer screening among racially and ethnically minoritized groups: A scoping review

Lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases lung cancer related mortality among high-risk people who smoke cigarettes and has been endorsed by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) since 2013. However, adoption of LCS has been limited, and disparities in LCS among racially and ethnically minoritized groups have become apparent. While recommendations to improve disparities in LCS have been made, there is a lack of information on how these recommendations have been implemented and their relative effectiveness in improving screening disparities. This scoping review addresses this knowledge gap by examining interventions that have been implemented to improve LCS among racially and ethnically minoritized groups in the United States. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO), and Scopus (via Elsevier), for articles from the period 1 January 2010 through 22 October 2021 was completed. Out of 17,045 references screened, only 11 studies describing an intervention to improve disparities in LCS were identified, underscoring the dearth of data on established interventions. The interventions discussed could be categorized into three groups -- patient level (n = 3), clinic/institution level (n = 3), and community level (n = 5) interventions. Of those studies reporting effectiveness data (n = 8), there was substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and their relative effectiveness. We found that interventions which streamlined the LCS process at the level of a single clinic or institution were the most effective in improving LCS. Community-level interventions that focused on engagement and education had the greatest potential to target racially and ethnically minoritized groups. Our study underscores the need for more robust research on addressing barriers to LCS by identifying effective patient, clinic, and community-level interventions to improve LCS disparities and the need for potential standardization of intervention effectiveness outcomes.

Development and testing of "Is Lung Cancer Screening for You?" A computer-based decision aid

PURPOSE

To reduce lung cancer mortality, individuals at high-risk should receive a low-dose computed tomography screening annually. To increase the likelihood of screening, interventions that promote shared decision-making are needed. The goal of this study was to investigate the feasibility, acceptability, usability, and preliminary effectiveness of a computer-based decision aid.

METHODS

Thirty-three participants were recruited through primary-care clinics in a small southeastern-US city. Participants used a computer-based decision aid ("Is Lung Cancer Screening for You?") during a clinic appointment. Paper surveys collected self-reported feasibility, acceptability, and usability data. A research coordinator was present to observe each patient's and health-care provider's interactions, and to assess the fidelity of shared decision-making.

RESULTS

The decision aid was feasible, acceptable for use in a clinic setting, and easy for participants to use. Patients had low decisional conflict following use of the decision aid and had high screening intention and actual screening rates. Shared decision-making discussions using the decision aid were nearly 6 min on average.

CONCLUSION

Computer-based decision aids are feasible for promoting shared lung cancer-screening decisions. A more robust study is warranted to measure the added value of a computer-based version of this aid versus a paper-based aid.

Pilot Study of an Encounter Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has mandated in-person shared decision-making (SDM) counseling with the use of one or more decision aids (DAs) prior to lung cancer screening. We developed a single-page, paper-based, encounter DA (EDA) to be used within a clinician-patient encounter for lung cancer screening and conducted a pre-post pilot intervention study to evaluate its feasibility and effects on patient decisional conflict. Patients referred to a pulmonary practice-based lung cancer screening program were surveyed before and after an SDM visit with a pulmonologist, who used the EDA to counsel the patient. Patient knowledge of the mortality benefit from screening and the frequency of abnormal screening test results was evaluated after the visit, while decisional conflict was measured before and after the visit using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Twenty-three patients participated (mean age = 65.8 years; 43% female; mean smoking history = 57.8 pack-years; 48% currently smoking). Following the visit, 28% of participants correctly understood the mortality benefit of lung cancer screening, while 82% understood the frequency of abnormal screening tests. The mean total DCS score decreased from 35.0 to 0.2 after the visit (p < 0.001). These data suggest that a single-page, paper-based EDA is feasible and potentially effective in reducing decision conflict when used within a SDM visit, although more research is needed to establish the independent effects of the EDA, and future efforts to promote SDM may need to devote greater attention to improving patient understanding of the mortality benefit of screening.

Primary Care Physician Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in Lung Cancer Screening

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) supports lung cancer screening (LCS) with annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for patients who undergo shared decision-making (SDM) about LCS. Unfortunately, SDM and LCS rates are low in primary care, and, as a result, the potential benefits of LCS are not being realized. The research team interviewed 16 primary care physicians in a large urban medical center (7 in Family and Community Medicine and 9 in Internal Medicine) on their views of SDM and LCS. Interview audio-recordings were transcribed. Coders analyzed the interview transcripts independently using direct content analysis to identify major themes and subthemes. Results of interview analyses show that physicians were aware of LCS but believed that they and their patients would benefit from receiving more information about screening guidelines. Physicians knew about SDM and felt that SDM performance could help to identify issues that are important to patients and may affect their receptivity to LCS. However, many physicians expressed concerns about the time required for SDM and completing SDM about LCS when other issues need to be addressed. They also acknowledged the challenge of engaging patients, especially those with low health literacy, in SDM. In practice, some physicians reported instead of engaging eligible patients in SDM, they simply encourage them to screen. Importantly, most physicians said that they would like to receive training in SDM. Findings from this study indicate that primary care physicians support the dissemination of information about LCS and understand the importance of SDM. Physicians also feel that performing SDM in routine care is challenging but are receptive to additional training in SDM. Health systems should take steps to support SDM and LCS performance in primary care.

Perceived effectiveness of cancer screening among family medicine and internal medicine physicians in the United States

•

There are limited data on family medicine and internal medicine physicians’ beliefs regarding perceived cancer screening effectiveness.

•

Perceiving specific cancer screening tests as very effective differed in some cases by gender, age, graduation year, and race/ethnicity.

•

Physicians’ perceived effectiveness about cancer screening tests varies widely and may influence their recommendations or usage of these tests.

•

Understanding physicians’ beliefs on screening effectiveness can help improve uptake of evidence-based screening by providers and patients to promote early detection and successful treatment.

Family and internal medicine physicians play an important role in cancer screening, yet there are limited data on their beliefs regarding effectiveness of screening tests, which may affect physicians’ likelihood to recommend such tests. The study purpose was to assess current beliefs among family medicine and internal medicine physicians regarding effectiveness of various types of cancer screening. A national sample of 582 physicians from the American Medical Association’s Physician Masterfile were surveyed. Participants were asked about their perceived effectiveness of screening for colon, lung, breast, prostate, and cervical cancer among average, healthy individuals. Chi-square tests were conducted to assess relationships between perceiving screening tests to be ‘very effective in reducing cancer-related mortality’ and demographic characteristics. A substantial majority of physicians perceived colonoscopy (83.8%) and Pap smear (82.9%) to be very effective. Perceiving low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), Pap smear, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as ‘very effective’ differed by gender, with females less likely to endorse LDCT and Pap smear but more likely to endorse PSA. Perceiving PSA as ‘very effective’ differed by age and graduation year, with younger or more recently graduated physicians being less likely to perceive PSA as ‘very effective’. Non-Hispanic Black/African-American physicians were more likely to perceive mammography as ‘very effective’ than other groups. Physicians’ perceived effectiveness about cancer screening tests varies widely and may influence their recommendations or usage of these tests. Understanding physicians’ beliefs can help in improving uptake of evidence-based screening tests by providers and patients to promote early detection and successful treatment.

The Need for Brevity During Shared Decision Making (SDM) for Cancer Screening: Veterans' Perspectives on an "Everyday SDM" Compromise

Introduction. Detailed or "full" shared decision making (SDM) about cancer screening is difficult in the primary care setting. Time spent discussing cancer screening is time not spent on other important issues. Given time constraints, brief SDM that is incomplete but addresses key elements may be feasible and acceptable. However, little is known about how patients feel about abbreviated SDM. This study assessed patient perspectives on a compromise solution ("everyday SDM"): 1) primary care provided makes a tailored recommendation, 2) briefly presents qualitative information on key tradeoffs, and 3) conveys full support for decisional autonomy and desires for more information. Methods. We recruited a stratified random sample of Veterans from an academic Veterans Affairs medical center who were eligible for lung cancer screening, oversampling women and minority patients, to attend a 6-hour deliberative focus group. Experts informed participants about cancer screening, factors that influence screening benefits, and the role of patient preferences. Then, facilitator-led small groups elicited patient questions and informed opinions about the everyday SDM proposal, its acceptability, and their recommendations for improvement. Results. Thirty-six Veterans with a heavy smoking history participated (50% male, 83% white). There was a strong consensus that everyday SDM was acceptable if patients were the final deciders and could get more information on request. Participants broadly recommended that clinicians only mention downsides directly related to screening and avoid discussion of potential downstream harms (such as biopsies). Discussion. Although further testing in more diverse populations and different conditions is needed, these patients found the everyday SDM approach to be acceptable for routine lung cancer screening discussions, despite its use of an explicit recommendation and presentation of only qualitative information.

Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration

BACKGROUND

The 2013 update of the evidence informing the quality dimensions behind the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) offered a model process for developers of patient decision aids.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and update the evidence used to inform the systematic development of patient decision aids from the IPDAS Collaboration.

METHODS

To provide further details about design and development methods, we summarized findings from a subgroup (n = 283 patient decision aid projects) in a recent systematic review of user involvement by Vaisson et al. Using a new measure of user-centeredness (UCD-11), we then rated the degree of user-centeredness reported in 66 articles describing patient decision aid development and citing the 2013 IPDAS update on systematic development. We contacted the 66 articles' authors to request their self-reports of UCD-11 items.

RESULTS

The 283 development processes varied substantially from minimal iteration cycles to more complex processes, with multiple iterations, needs assessments, and extensive involvement of end users. We summarized minimal, medium, and maximal processes from the data. Authors of 54 of 66 articles (82%) provided self-reported UCD-11 ratings. Self-reported scores were significantly higher than reviewer ratings (reviewers: mean [SD] = 6.45 [3.10]; authors: mean [SD] = 9.62 [1.16], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aid developers have embraced principles of user-centered design in the development of patient decision aids while also underreporting aspects of user involvement in publications about their tools. Templates may reduce the need for extensive development, and new approaches for rapid development of aids have been proposed when a more detailed approach is not feasible. We provide empirically derived benchmark processes and a reporting checklist to support developers in more fully describing their development processes.[Box: see text].

Dealing with the Lack of Time for Detailed Shared Decision-making in Primary Care: Everyday Shared Decision-making

Policymakers and researchers are strongly encouraging clinicians to support patient autonomy through shared decision-making (SDM). In setting policies for clinical care, decision-makers need to understand that current models of SDM have tended to focus on major decisions (e.g., surgeries and chemotherapy) and focused less on everyday primary care decisions. Most decisions in primary care are substantive everyday decisions: intermediate-stakes decisions that occur dozens of times every day, yet are non-trivial for patients, such as whether routine mammography should start at age 40, 45, or 50. Expectations that busy clinicians use current models of SDM (here referred to as "detailed" SDM) for these decisions can feel overwhelming to clinicians. Evidence indicates that detailed SDM is simply not realistic for most of these decisions and without a feasible alternative, clinicians usually default to a decision-making approach with little to no personalization. We propose, for discussion and refinement, a compromise approach to personalizing these decisions (everyday SDM). Everyday SDM is based on a feasible process for supporting patient autonomy that also allows clinicians to continue being respectful health advocates for their patients. We propose that alternatives to detailed SDM are needed to make progress toward more patient-centered care.

The SHARED Project: A Novel Approach to Engaging African American Men to Address Lung Cancer Disparities

Black men are disproportionately impacted by lung cancer morbidity and mortality. Low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening has demonstrated benefits for reducing lung cancer deaths by identifying cancers at earlier, more treatable stages. Despite the known benefits, LDCT screening is underutilized in black men. Studies in racially heterogeneous populations have found correlations between screening behaviors and factors such as physician trust, physician referral, and a desire to reduce the uncertainty of not knowing if they had lung cancer; yet little is known about the factors that specifically contribute to screening behaviors in black men. Community engagement strategies are beneficial for understanding barriers to health-care engagement. One community engagement approach is the citizen scientist model. Citizen scientists are lay people who are trained in research methods; they have proven valuable in increasing communities' knowledge of the importance of healthy behaviors such as screening, awareness of research, building trust in research, and improving study design and ethics. This paper proposes an intervention, grounded in community-based participatory research approaches and social network theory, to engage black men as citizen scientists in an effort to increase lung cancer screening in black men. This mixed-methods intervention will examine the attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs of black men related to uptake of evidence-based lung cancer screening.

Tools to Promote Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT Scanning: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Decisions about lung cancer screening are inherently complex and create a need for methods to convey the risks and benefits of screening to patients.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What kind of decision aids or tools are available to support shared decision-making for lung cancer screening? What is the current evidence for the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of those tools?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2019 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of tools to promote shared decision-making for patients who are considering lung cancer screening.

RESULTS

After screening 2,427 records, we included one randomized control trial, two observational studies, 11 before/after studies of a decision aid or an educational tool. Fifteen distinct tools in various formats were evaluated in 14 studies. Most studies were of fair quality. Studies reported improvement in patients' knowledge of lung cancer screening (n = 9 studies), but improvements in specific areas of knowledge were inconsistent. Decisional conflict was low or reduced after the administration of the tools (n = 7 studies). The acceptability of tools was rated as "high" by patients (n = 7 studies) and physicians (n = 1 study). Low dose CT scan completion rates varied among studies (n = 6 studies).

INTERPRETATION

Evidence from 14 studies suggests that some elements of existing tools for lung cancer screening may help to prepare patients for decision-making by improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. Such tools generally are acceptable to patients and providers. Further studies that use consistent measures and reporting methods and assess relevant decisional and clinical outcomes are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and feasibility of implementation of these tools.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2018 CRD4201874814.

"To know or not to know…?" Push and pull in ever smokers lung screening uptake decision-making intentions

BACKGROUND

In the United States, lung cancer screening aims to detect cancer early in nonsymptomatic current and former smokers. A lung screening pilot service in an area of high lung cancer incidence in the United Kingdom has been designed based on United States trial evidence. However, our understanding of acceptability and reasons for lung screening uptake or decline in a United Kingdom nontrial context are currently limited.

OBJECTIVE

To explore with ever smokers the acceptability of targeted lung screening and uptake decision-making intentions.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semistructured focus groups and inductive thematic analysis to explore acceptability and uptake decision-making intentions with people of similar characteristics to lung screening eligible individuals.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-three participants (22 ex-smokers; 11 smokers) men and women, smokers and ex-smokers, aged 50-80 were recruited purposively from community and health settings in Manchester, England.

RESULTS

Lung screening was widely acceptable to participants. It was seen as offering reassurance about lung health or opportunity for early detection and treatment. Participant's desire to know about their lung health via screening was impacted by perceived benefits; emotions such as worry about a diagnosis and screening tests; practicalities such as accessibility; and smoking-related issues including perceptions of individual risk and smoking stigma.

DISCUSSION

Decision making was multifaceted with indications that current smokers faced higher participation barriers than ex-smokers. Reducing participation barriers through careful service design and provision of decision support information will be important in lung screening programmes to support informed consent and equitable uptake.

Developing and testing a brief clinic-based lung cancer screening decision aid for primary care settings

Background

Cancer screening‐related decisions require patients to evaluate complex medical information in short time frames, often with primary care providers (PCPs) they do not know. PCPs play an essential role in facilitating comprehensive shared decision making (SDM).

Objective

To develop and test a decision aid (DA) and SDM strategy for PCPs and high‐risk patients.

Design

The DA was tested with 20 dyads. Each dyad consisted of one PCP and one patient eligible for screening. A prospective, one‐group, mixed‐method study design measured fidelity, patient values, screening intention, acceptability and satisfaction.

Results

Four PCPs and 20 patients were recruited from an urban academic medical centre. Most patients were female (n = 14, 70%), most had completed high school (n = 15, 75%), and their average age was 65 years old. Half were African American. Patients and PCPs rated the DA as helpful, easy to read and use and acceptable in terms of time frame (observed t = 11.6 minutes, SD 2.7). Most patients (n = 16, 80%) indicated their intent to be screened. PCPs recommended screening for most patients (n = 17, 85%).

Conclusions

Evidence supports the value of lung cancer screening with LDCT for select high‐risk patients. Guidelines endorse engaging patients and their PCPs in SDM discussions. Our findings suggest that using a brief, interactive, plain‐language, culturally sensitive, theory‐based DA and SDM strategy is feasible, acceptable and may be essential to effectively translate and sustain the adoption of LDCT screening recommendations into the clinic setting.