1
|
Potter AL, Xu NN, Senthil P, Srinivasan D, Lee H, Gazelle GS, Chelala L, Zheng W, Fintelmann FJ, Sequist LV, Donington J, Palmer JR, Yang CFJ. Pack-Year Smoking History: An Inadequate and Biased Measure to Determine Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility. J Clin Oncol 2024; 42:2026-2037. [PMID: 38537159 PMCID: PMC11191064 DOI: 10.1200/jco.23.01780] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2023] [Revised: 12/21/2023] [Accepted: 02/02/2024] [Indexed: 05/03/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Pack-year smoking history is an imperfect and biased measure of cumulative tobacco exposure. The use of pack-year smoking history to determine lung cancer screening eligibility in the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guideline may unintentionally exclude many high-risk individuals, especially those from racial and ethnic minority groups. It is unclear whether using a smoking duration cutoff instead of a smoking pack-year cutoff would improve the selection of individuals for screening. METHODS We analyzed 49,703 individuals with a smoking history from the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS) and 22,126 individuals with a smoking history from the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS) to assess eligibility for screening under the USPSTF guideline versus a proposed guideline that replaces the ≥20-pack-year criterion with a ≥20-year smoking duration criterion. RESULTS Under the USPSTF guideline, only 57.6% of Black patients with lung cancer in the SCCS would have qualified for screening, whereas a significantly higher percentage of White patients with lung cancer (74.0%) would have qualified (P < .001). Under the proposed guideline, the percentage of Black and White patients with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening increased to 85.3% and 82.0%, respectively, eradicating the disparity in screening eligibility between the groups. In the BWHS, using a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff increased the percentage of Black women with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening from 42.5% to 63.8%. CONCLUSION Use of a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff greatly increases the proportion of patients with lung cancer who would qualify for screening and eliminates the racial disparity in screening eligibility between Black versus White individuals; smoking duration has the added benefit of being easier to calculate and being a more precise assessment of smoking exposure compared with pack-year smoking history.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandra L. Potter
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Nuo N. Xu
- Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, Boston, MA
| | - Priyanka Senthil
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Deepti Srinivasan
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Hang Lee
- Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - G. Scott Gazelle
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
- Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Lydia Chelala
- Department of Radiology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Wei Zheng
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Nashville, TN
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | | | - Lecia V. Sequist
- Mass General Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Jessica Donington
- Section of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Hospital, Chicago, IL
| | | | - Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gebremeskel TG, Romeo F, Shama AT, Bonevski B, Trigg J. Facilitators and Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening during Long COVID: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Study Synthesis of Qualitative Research. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2024; 21:534. [PMID: 38791759 PMCID: PMC11121223 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21050534] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2023] [Revised: 12/25/2023] [Accepted: 01/01/2024] [Indexed: 05/26/2024]
Abstract
Background: Participation in targeted screening reduces lung cancer mortality by 30-60%, but screening is not universally available. Therefore, the study aimed to synthesize the evidence and identify facilitators and barriers to lung cancer screening participation globally. Methods: Two reviewers screened primary studies using qualitative methods published up to February 2023. We used two-phase synthesis consistent with a meta-study methodology to create an interpretation of lung cancer screening decisions grounded in primary studies, carried out a thematic analysis of group themes as specific facilitators and barriers, systematically compared investigations for similarities and differences, and performed meta-synthesis to generate an expanded theory of lung cancer screening participation. We used the Social Ecological Model to organize and interpret the themes: individual, interpersonal, social/cultural, and organizational/structural levels. Results: Fifty-two articles met the final inclusion criteria. Themes identified as facilitating lung cancer screening included prioritizing patient education, quality of communication, and quality of provider-initiated encounter/coordination of care (individual patient and provider level), quality of the patient-provider relationship (interpersonal group), perception of a life's value and purpose (cultural status), quality of tools designed, and care coordination (and organizational level). Themes coded as barriers included low awareness, fear of cancer diagnosis, low perceived benefit, high perceived risk of low-dose computerized tomography, concern about cancer itself, practical obstacle, futility, stigma, lack of family support, COVID-19 fear, disruptions in cancer care due to COVID-19, inadequate knowledge of care providers, shared decision, and inadequate time (individual level), patient misunderstanding, poor rapport, provider recommendation, lack of established relationship, and confusing decision aid tools (interpersonal group), distrust in the service, fatalistic beliefs, and perception of aging (cultural level), and lack of institutional policy, lack of care coordinators, inadequate infrastructure, absence of insurance coverage, and costs (and organizational status). Conclusions: This study identified critical barriers, facilitators, and implications to lung cancer screening participation. Therefore, we employed strategies for a new digital medicine (artificial intelligence) screening method to balance the cost-benefit, "workdays" lost in case of disease, and family hardship, which is essential to improve lung cancer screening uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Teferi Gebru Gebremeskel
- Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute (FHMRI), College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, P.O. Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia; (B.B.)
- Department of Reproductive Health, College of Health Sciences, Aksum University, Aksum P.O. Box 1010, Tigray, Ethiopia
| | - Frank Romeo
- S.H.R.O SBARRO Organization, College of Science and Technology, Temple University, RM 00196 Roma, Italy
- Department of Public Health, Health Institute, Wollega University, Nekemte P.O. Box 395, Wollega, Ethiopia;
| | - Adisu Tafari Shama
- Department of Public Health, Health Institute, Wollega University, Nekemte P.O. Box 395, Wollega, Ethiopia;
| | - Billie Bonevski
- Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute (FHMRI), College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, P.O. Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia; (B.B.)
| | - Joshua Trigg
- Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute (FHMRI), College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, P.O. Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia; (B.B.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Núñez ER, Bolton RE, Boudreau JH, Sliwinski SK, Herbst AN, Kearney LE, Caverly TJ, Wiener RS. "It Can't Hurt!": Why Many Patients With Limited Life Expectancy Decide to Accept Lung Cancer Screening. Ann Fam Med 2024; 22:95-102. [PMID: 38527813 PMCID: PMC11237214 DOI: 10.1370/afm.3081] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2023] [Revised: 11/01/2023] [Accepted: 11/13/2023] [Indexed: 03/27/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Lung cancer screening (LCS) has less benefit and greater potential for iatrogenic harm among people with multiple comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Yet, such individuals are more likely to undergo screening than healthier LCS-eligible people. We sought to understand how patients with marginal LCS benefit conceptualize their health and make decisions regarding LCS. METHODS We interviewed 40 people with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy, as determined by high Care Assessment Need scores, which predict 1-year risk of hospitalization or death. Patients were recruited from 6 Veterans Health Administration facilities after discussing LCS with their clinician. We conducted a thematic analysis using constant comparison to explore factors that influence LCS decision making. RESULTS Patients commonly held positive beliefs about screening and perceived LCS to be noninvasive. When posed with hypothetical scenarios of limited benefit, patients emphasized the nonlongevity benefits of LCS (eg, peace of mind, planning for the future) and generally did not consider their health status or life expectancy when making decisions regarding LCS. Most patients were unaware of possible additional evaluations or treatment of screen-detected findings, but when probed further, many expressed concerns about the potential need for multiple evaluations, referrals, or invasive procedures. CONCLUSIONS Patients in this study with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy were unaware of their greater risk of potential harm when accepting LCS. Given patient trust in clinician recommendations, it is important that clinicians engage patients with marginal LCS benefit in shared decision making, ensuring that their values of desiring more information about their health are weighed against potential harms from further evaluations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eduardo R Núñez
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts and VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, Massachusetts
- The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Healthcare Delivery and Population Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School-Baystate, Springfield, Massachusetts
| | - Rendelle E Bolton
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts and VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, Massachusetts
- The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts
| | - Jacqueline H Boudreau
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts and VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, Massachusetts
| | - Samantha K Sliwinski
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts and VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, Massachusetts
| | - Abigail N Herbst
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts and VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, Massachusetts
| | - Lauren E Kearney
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts and VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, Massachusetts
- The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Tanner J Caverly
- National Center for Lung Cancer Screening, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC
- VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
- University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Renda Soylemez Wiener
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts and VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, Massachusetts
- The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
- National Center for Lung Cancer Screening, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Cho MK, Cho YH. Factors influencing the intention for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations for lung cancer. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs 2024; 11:100332. [PMID: 38192279 PMCID: PMC10772583 DOI: 10.1016/j.apjon.2023.100332] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2023] [Accepted: 10/29/2023] [Indexed: 01/10/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mi-Kyoung Cho
- Department of Nursing Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea
| | - Yoon Hee Cho
- Department of Nursing, College of Nursing, Dankook University, Cheonan, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Eberth JM, Gieske MR, Silvestri GA. Changing recommendations for lung cancer screening: National Lung Cancer Roundtable member perspectives. Cancer 2023; 129:1953-1958. [PMID: 37060173 PMCID: PMC10787349 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34798] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/16/2023]
Abstract
Although the revised (2021) US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for lung cancer screening offer the opportunity to save more lives and reduce disparities, National Lung Cancer Roundtable members share a cautionary message about the challenges ahead. To facilitate high‐quality care for diverse populations, a patient‐centered approach is needed that incorporates high‐quality shared decision‐making, improved access to care and navigation, and more streamlined systems of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan M Eberth
- Department of Health Management and Policy, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | | | - Gerard A Silvestri
- School of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Nightingale C, Bavor C, Stone E, Rankin NM. Lung Cancer Screening: Implementation Challenges and Health Equity Considerations For the Western Pacific Region. JCO Glob Oncol 2023; 9:e2200329. [PMID: 36749907 PMCID: PMC10166439 DOI: 10.1200/go.22.00329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/09/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Nightingale
- Center for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Claire Bavor
- Center for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Emily Stone
- Department of Lung Transplantation and Thoracic Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Darlinghurst, Australia.,Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia
| | - Nicole M Rankin
- Center for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.,Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Cavers D, Nelson M, Rostron J, Robb KA, Brown LR, Campbell C, Akram AR, Dickie G, Mackean M, van Beek EJR, Sullivan F, Steele RJ, Neilson AR, Weller D. Understanding patient barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung screening using low dose computed tomography: a mixed methods scoping review of the current literature. Respir Res 2022; 23:374. [PMID: 36564817 PMCID: PMC9789658 DOI: 10.1186/s12931-022-02255-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2022] [Accepted: 11/17/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality by upwards of twenty percent. However, screening is not universally available and uptake is variable and socially patterned. Understanding screening behaviour is integral to designing a service that serves its population and promotes equitable uptake. We sought to review the literature to identify barriers and facilitators to screening to inform the development of a pilot lung screening study in Scotland. METHODS We used Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology and PRISMA-ScR framework to identify relevant literature to meet the study aims. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies published between January 2000 and May 2021 were identified and reviewed by two reviewers for inclusion, using a list of search terms developed by the study team and adapted for chosen databases. RESULTS Twenty-one articles met the final inclusion criteria. Articles were published between 2003 and 2021 and came from high income countries. Following data extraction and synthesis, findings were organised into four categories: Awareness of lung screening, Enthusiasm for lung screening, Barriers to lung screening, and Facilitators or ways of promoting uptake of lung screening. Awareness of lung screening was low while enthusiasm was high. Barriers to screening included fear of a cancer diagnosis, low perceived risk of lung cancer as well as practical barriers of cost, travel and time off work. Being health conscious, provider endorsement and seeking reassurance were all identified as facilitators of screening participation. CONCLUSIONS Understanding patient reported barriers and facilitators to lung screening can help inform the implementation of future lung screening pilots and national lung screening programmes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Debbie Cavers
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 1, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG UK
| | - Mia Nelson
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 1, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG UK
| | - Jasmin Rostron
- The National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 2 Dean Trench Street, London, NW1P 3HE UK
| | - Kathryn A. Robb
- Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8RZ UK
| | - Lynsey R. Brown
- School of Medicine, University of St. Andrews, North Haugh, St. Andrews, KY16 9TF UK
| | - Christine Campbell
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 1, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG UK
| | - Ahsan R. Akram
- MRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Graeme Dickie
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 1, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG UK
| | - Melanie Mackean
- Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU UK
| | - Edwin J. R. van Beek
- Edinburgh Imaging, Queen’s Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4TJ UK
| | - Frank Sullivan
- School of Medicine, University of St. Andrews, North Haugh, St. Andrews, KY16 9TF UK
| | - Robert J. Steele
- School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY UK
| | - Aileen R. Neilson
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 1, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG UK
| | - David Weller
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 1, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Cavers D, Nelson M, Rostron J, Robb KA, Brown LR, Campbell C, Akram AR, Dickie G, Mackean M, van Beek EJR, Sullivan F, Steele RJ, Neilson AR, Weller D. Optimizing the implementation of lung cancer screening in Scotland: Focus group participant perspectives in the LUNGSCOT study. Health Expect 2022; 25:3246-3258. [PMID: 36263948 PMCID: PMC9700133 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13632] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2022] [Revised: 09/15/2022] [Accepted: 10/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing lung cancer and all-cause mortality according to major trials in the United Kingdom and Europe. However, the best ways of implementing screening in local communities requires an understanding of the population the programme will serve. We undertook a study to explore the views of those potentially eligible for, and to identify potential barriers and facilitators to taking part in, lung screening, to inform the development of a feasibility study. METHODS Men and women aged 45-70, living in urban and rural Scotland, and either self-reported people who smoke or who recently quit, were invited to take part in the study via research agency Taylor McKenzie. Eleven men and 14 women took part in three virtual focus groups exploring their views on lung screening. Focus group transcripts were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis, assisted by QSR NVivo. FINDINGS Three overarching themes were identified: (1) Knowledge, awareness and acceptability of lung screening, (2) Barriers and facilitators to screening and (3) Promoting screening and implementation ideas. Participants were largely supportive of lung screening in principle and described the importance of the early detection of cancer. Emotional and psychological concerns as well as system-level and practical issues were discussed as posing barriers and facilitators to lung screening. CONCLUSIONS Understanding the views of people potentially eligible for a lung health check can usefully inform the development of a further study to test the feasibility and acceptability of lung screening in Scotland. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION The LUNGSCOT study has convened a patient advisory group to advise on all aspects of study development and implementation. Patient representatives commented on the focus group study design, study materials and ethics application, and two representatives read the focus group transcripts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Debbie Cavers
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher InstituteUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
| | - Mia Nelson
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher InstituteUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
| | - Jasmin Rostron
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher InstituteUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
- Present address:
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research2 Dean Trench Street, London NW1P 3HEUK
| | - Kathryn A. Robb
- School of Health and WellbeingUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
| | | | - Christine Campbell
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher InstituteUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
| | - Ahsan R. Akram
- Centre for Inflammation Research and Edinburgh Cancer Research CentreUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
| | - Graeme Dickie
- Care of the Usher InstituteUniversity of Edinburgh, EdinburghEdinburghUK
| | | | - Edwin J. R. van Beek
- Edinburgh Imaging, Queen's Medical Research InstituteUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
| | | | - Robert J. Steele
- School of Medicine, Ninewells HospitalUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK
| | - Aileen R. Neilson
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher InstituteUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
| | - David Weller
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher InstituteUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Dunlop KLA, Marshall HM, Stone E, Sharman AR, Dodd RH, Rhee JJ, McCullough S, Rankin NM. Motivation is not enough: A qualitative study of lung cancer screening uptake in Australia to inform future implementation. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0275361. [PMID: 36178960 PMCID: PMC9524683 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275361] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2022] [Accepted: 09/15/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) trials and real-world programs is low, with many people at high-risk for lung cancer opting out of baseline screening after registering interest. We aimed to identify the potential drivers of participation in LCS in the Australian setting, to inform future implementation. Methods Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals at high-risk of lung cancer who were eligible for screening and who had either participated (‘screeners’) or declined to participate (‘decliners’) in the International Lung Screening Trial from two Australian sites. Interview guide development was informed by the Precaution Adoption Process Model. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using the COM-B model of behaviour to explore capability, opportunity and motivation related to screening behaviour. Results Thirty-nine participants were interviewed (25 screeners; 14 decliners). Motivation to participate in screening was high in both groups driven by the lived experience of lung cancer and a belief that screening is valuable, however decliners unlike their screening counterparts reported low self-efficacy. Decliners in our study reported challenges in capability including ability to attend and in knowledge and understanding. Decliners also reported challenges related to physical and social opportunity, in particular location as a barrier and lack of family support to attend screening. Conclusion Our findings suggest that motivation alone may not be sufficient to change behaviour related to screening participation, unless capability and opportunity are also considered. Focusing strategies on barriers related to capability and opportunity such as online/telephone support, mobile screening programs and financial assistance for screeners may better enhance screening participation. Providing funding for clinicians to support individuals in decision-making and belief in self-efficacy may foster motivation. Targeting interventions that connect eligible individuals with the LCS program will be crucial for successful implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate L. A. Dunlop
- Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- * E-mail:
| | - Henry M. Marshall
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- The University of Queensland Thoracic Research Centre, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Emily Stone
- Department of Thoracic Medicine and Lung Transplantation, St Vincent’s Hospital, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia
- School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW, Australia
| | - Ashleigh R. Sharman
- School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Rachael H. Dodd
- Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Joel J. Rhee
- School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW, Australia
- Graduate School of Medicine, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Nicole M. Rankin
- School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Sedani AE, Davis OC, Clifton SC, Campbell JE, Chou AF. Facilitators and Barriers to Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening: A Framework-Driven Systematic Review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2022; 114:1449-1467. [PMID: 35993616 PMCID: PMC9664175 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djac154] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2022] [Revised: 07/14/2022] [Accepted: 08/15/2022] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The purpose of this study is to undertake a comprehensive systematic review to describe multilevel factors (barriers and facilitators) that may influence the implementation of low-dose chest computed tomography for lung cancer screening in the United States. METHODS Systematic literature searches were performed using 6 online databases and citation indexes for peer-reviewed studies, for articles published from 2013 to 2021. Studies were classified into 3 perspectives, based on the study's unit of analysis: system, health-care provider, and patient. Barriers and facilitators identified for each study included in our final review were then coded and categorized using the Consolidate Framework for Implementation Research domains. RESULTS At the system level, the 2 most common constructs were external policy and incentives and executing the implementation process. At the provider level, the most common constructs were evidence strength and quality of the intervention characteristics, patient needs and resources, implementation climate, and an individual's knowledge and beliefs about the intervention. At the patient level, the most common constructs were patient needs and resources, individual's knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, and engaging in the implementation process. These constructs can act as facilitators or barriers to lung cancer screening implementation. CONCLUSIONS Applying the Consolidate Framework for Implementation Research domains and constructs to understand and specify factors facilitating uptake of lung cancer screening as well as cataloging the lessons learned from previous efforts helps inform the development and implementation processes of lung cancer screening programs in the community setting. REGISTRATION PROSPERO, CRD42021247677.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ami E Sedani
- Correspondence to: Ami E. Sedani, MPH, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Hudson College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 801 NE 13th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA (e-mail: )
| | - Olivia C Davis
- College of Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | - Shari C Clifton
- Robert M. Bird Health Sciences Library, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | - Janis E Campbell
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Hudson College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | - Ann F Chou
- Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Lin YA, Carter-Harris L, Yang JN, Lin XJ, Huang FF. Adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the lung cancer screening health belief scales. BMC Public Health 2022; 22:620. [PMID: 35354440 PMCID: PMC8969234 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13041-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2021] [Accepted: 03/22/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-An Lin
- School of Nursing, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | | | - Jia-Ni Yang
- School of Nursing, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Xiu Jing Lin
- School of Nursing, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Fei Fei Huang
- School of Nursing, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Rankin NM, McWilliams A, Marshall HM. Lung cancer screening implementation: Complexities and priorities. Respirology 2021; 25 Suppl 2:5-23. [PMID: 33200529 DOI: 10.1111/resp.13963] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2020] [Accepted: 10/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. The benefits of lung cancer screening to reduce mortality and detect early-stage disease are no longer in any doubt based on the results of two landmark trials using LDCT. Lung cancer screening has been implemented in the US and South Korea and is under consideration by other communities. Successful translation of demonstrated research outcomes into the routine clinical setting requires careful implementation and co-ordinated input from multiple stakeholders. Implementation aspects may be specific to different healthcare settings. Important knowledge gaps remain, which must be addressed in order to optimize screening benefits and minimize screening harms. Lung cancer screening differs from all other cancer screening programmes as lung cancer risk is driven by smoking, a highly stigmatized behaviour. Stigma, along with other factors, can impact smokers' engagement with screening, meaning that smokers are generally 'hard to reach'. This review considers critical points along the patient journey. The first steps include selecting a risk threshold at which to screen, successfully engaging the target population and maximizing screening uptake. We review barriers to smoker engagement in lung and other cancer screening programmes. Recruitment strategies used in trials and real-world (clinical) programmes and associated screening uptake are reviewed. To aid cross-study comparisons, we propose a standardized nomenclature for recording and calculating recruitment outcomes. Once participants have engaged with the screening programme, we discuss programme components that are critical to maximize net benefit. A whole-of-programme approach is required including a standardized and multidisciplinary approach to pulmonary nodule management, incorporating probabilistic nodule risk assessment and longitudinal volumetric analysis, to reduce unnecessary downstream investigations and surgery; the integration of smoking cessation; and identification and intervention for other tobacco related diseases, such as coronary artery calcification and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. National support, integrated with tobacco control programmes, and with appropriate funding, accreditation, data collection, quality assurance and reporting mechanisms will enhance lung cancer screening programme success and reduce the risks associated with opportunistic, ad hoc screening. Finally, implementation research must play a greater role in informing policy change about targeted LDCT screening programmes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole M Rankin
- School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Annette McWilliams
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia.,Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.,Thoracic Tumour Collaborative of Western Australia, Western Australia Cancer and Palliative Care Network, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Henry M Marshall
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.,The University of Queensland Thoracic Research Centre, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Van Hal G, Diab Garcia P. Lung cancer screening: targeting the hard to reach-a review. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2021; 10:2309-2322. [PMID: 34164279 PMCID: PMC8182716 DOI: 10.21037/tlcr-20-525] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guido Van Hal
- Department of Social Epidemiology and Health Policy, University of Antwerp, Belgium, Antwerpen, Belgium
| | - Paloma Diab Garcia
- Department of Social Epidemiology and Health Policy, University of Antwerp, Belgium, Antwerpen, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Abstract
PURPOSE/AIMS Smoking-related stigma is manifested in the everyday social interactions of persons who smoke and can result in low self-esteem, diminished self-efficacy, and resistance to smoking cessation. The purpose of this study was to describe smoking-related social interactions as experienced by persons with a history of long-term smoking. DESIGN This study used a qualitative descriptive approach. METHODS This study is part of a larger study designed to identify factors that influence lung cancer screening participation. Data were drawn from 39 qualitative interviews with persons from the parent study. All descriptions about smoking-related social interactions found in the narratives were extracted, coded, categorized, and summarized with content analytic techniques. RESULTS Seven different types of social interactions were identified: (a) being looked down on for smoking, (b) being humiliated for smoking in public, (c) being banished while smoking, (d) being blamed for one's health problems, (e) not "really" being blamed for smoking, (f) being told "just quit," and (g) being worried about hurting others. CONCLUSIONS Clinical nurse specialists should promote antismoking campaigns that are not stigmatizing, discuss health risks of smoking in a respectful manner, provide evidence-based cessation resources, improve communication with persons who smoke, and address stigma in programs to improve screening for smoking-related illnesses.
Collapse
|
15
|
Draucker CB, Rawl SM, Vode E, Carter-Harris L. Integration Through Connecting in Explanatory Sequential Mixed Method Studies. West J Nurs Res 2020; 42:1137-1147. [PMID: 32389099 DOI: 10.1177/0193945920914647] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
The purposes of this methods article are to (a) discuss how integration can occur through a connecting approach in explanatory sequential mixed methods studies, (b) describe a connecting strategy developed for a study testing a conceptual model to predict lung cancer screening, and (c) describe three analytic products developed by subsequent integration procedures enabled by the connecting strategy. Connecting occurs when numeric data from a quantitative strand of a study are used to select a sample to be interviewed for a subsequent qualitative strand. Because researchers often do not fully exploit numeric data for this purpose, we developed a multi-step systematic sampling strategy that produced an interview sample of eight subgroups of five persons (n = 40) whose profiles converged with or diverged from the conceptual model in specified ways. The subgroups facilitated the development of tailored interview guides, in-depth narrative summaries, and exemplar case studies to expand the quantitative findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Susan M Rawl
- Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.,Indiana University Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Emilee Vode
- Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Lisa Carter-Harris
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Draucker CB, Rawl SM, Vode E, Carter-Harris L. Understanding the decision to screen for lung cancer or not: A qualitative analysis. Health Expect 2019; 22:1314-1321. [PMID: 31560837 PMCID: PMC6882261 DOI: 10.1111/hex.12975] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2019] [Revised: 08/27/2019] [Accepted: 09/06/2019] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Susan M Rawl
- Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana.,Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Emilee Vode
- Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Lisa Carter-Harris
- Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|