What is the effect of a decision aid on knowledge, values and preferences for lung cancer screening? An online pre-post study

The impact of decision tools during oncological consultation with lung cancer patients: A systematic review within the I3LUNG project

INTRODUCTION

To date, lung cancer is one of the most lethal diagnoses worldwide. A variety of lung cancer treatments and modalities are available, which are generally presented during the patient and doctor consultation. The implementation of decision tools to facilitate patient's decision-making and the management of their healthcare process during medical consultation is fundamental. Studies have demonstrated that decision tools are helpful to promote health management and decision-making of lung cancer patients during consultations. The main aim of the present work within the I3LUNG project is to systematically review the implementation of decision tools to facilitate medical consultation about oncological treatments for lung cancer patients.

METHODS

In the present study, we conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. We used an electronic computer-based search involving three databases, as follows: Embase, PubMed, and Scopus. 10 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included. They explicitly refer to decision tools in the oncological context, with lung cancer patients.

RESULTS

The discussion highlights the most encouraging results about the positive role of decision aids during medical consultations about oncological treatments, especially regarding anxiety, decision-making, and patient knowledge. However, no one main decision aid tool emerged as essential. Opting for a more recent timeframe to select eligible articles might shed light on the current array of decision aid tools available.

CONCLUSION

Future review efforts could utilize alternative search strategies to explore other lung cancer-specific outcomes during medical consultations for treatment decisions and the implementation of decision aid tools. Engaging with experts in the fields of oncology, patient decision-making, or health communication could provide valuable insights and recommendations for relevant literature or research directions that may not be readily accessible through traditional search methods. The development of guidelines for future research were provided with the aim to promote decision aids focused on patients' needs.

Digital Interventions to Support Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) can reduce lung cancer mortality, but its adoption in the U.S. has been limited. Digital interventions have the potential to improve uptake of LCS. This systematic review aims to summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of digital interventions in promoting LCS.

METHODS

A systematic search of three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Medline) was conducted to identify studies published between January 2014 and May 2023. Studies were reviewed and abstracted between February 2023 and July 2023. Outcomes related to knowledge, decision-making and screening were measured. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools.

RESULTS

Of 1,979 screened articles, 30 studies were included in this review. Digital interventions evaluated included decision aids (n=20), electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions (n=7), social media campaigns and mobile applications (n=3). Decision aids were the most commonly studied digital interventions, with most studies showing improved knowledge (13/13) and reduced decisional conflict (7/9) but most did not show a substantial change in screening use. Fewer studies tested clinician-facing or multi-level interventions.

DISCUSSION

Digital interventions, particularly decision aids, have shown promise in improving knowledge and the quality of decision-making around LCS. However, few interventions have been shown to substantially alter screening behavior and few clinician-facing or multi-level interventions have been rigorously tested. Further research is needed to develop effective tools for engaging patients in LCS, to compare the efficacy of different interventions, and evaluate implementation strategies in diverse healthcare settings.

Spiritual interventions: Improving the lives of colorectal cancer survivors-A systematic literature review

AIM

To systematically review the types of spiritual interventions available for colorectal cancer survivors and determine if they improve their lives.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCE

A thorough literature search was conducted in July 2023 using PRIMO, PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, and EMBASE.

REVIEW METHODS

As an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist, the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis reporting guideline was employed. A narrative synthesis was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Thirty-five articles were analysed for this study. The findings suggest that psychoeducational intervention, cognitive behavioural therapy intervention, mindfulness intervention, social intervention, and spiritual counselling improved CRC survivor's coping skills, boosted self-esteem, lessened anxiety, instilled hope, enhanced daily functioning, improved survival rates, improved neurological functional status and quality of life (QoL).

CONCLUSION

There is proof that spiritual interventions help CRC patients and improve their QoL. It has been discovered that spiritual intervention is helpful in the diagnosis, management, and treatment of CRC conditions.

IMPACT

CRC survivors may have impairments in their physical ability and daily functioning as a result of many symptoms, such as pain, bowel dysfunction, and exhaustion. Furthermore, individuals may encounter difficulties in several aspects of their psychological, emotional, social, and role functioning due to the presence of dread symptoms. Therefore, these study will help CRC survivors To implement spiritual interventions in the management of their long-term care. To cultivate problem-solving abilities, foster self-assurance, and enhance self-awareness. To alleviate symptoms, enhance everyday functioning, and improve QoL.

NO INDUCEMENT

No financial incentives were used to compensate patients or members of the public for this review.

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.

Application of Amiodarone and Cedilan in the Treatment of Patients with Arrhythmia after Esophageal and Lung Cancer

Objective

To explore the effect of amiodarone and cedilan in the treatment of patients with arrhythmia after esophageal and lung cancer.

Methods

The data of 60 patients with postoperative complications of arrhythmias after esophageal and lung cancer from January 2018 to July 2021 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into an observation group (n = 30) and control group (n = 30) according to the random number grouping principle. The former group was treated with amiodarone, and the latter group received cedilan.

Results

The effective rate of treatment was significantly higher in the observation group than the control group (P < 0.05). The observation group had the drug onset time obviously shorter than the control group (P < 0.001). The average ventricular rate after treatment in the observation group was remarkably lower than the control group (P < 0.001). The observation group exhibited obviously better cardiac function after treatment as compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was notably lower than the control group (P < 0.05). Moreover, the observation group had less stress after treatment than the control group (P < 0.001). The blood pressure level of the observation group after treatment was significantly better than the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Amiodarone can relieve stress in patients with arrhythmia following esophageal and lung cancer surgery, stabilize blood pressure, and mitigate arrhythmia symptoms. Our findings are worthy of promotion and application in clinic.

Effect of Incidental Findings Information on Lung Cancer Screening Intent: a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires decision aid use for lung cancer screening (LCS) shared decision-making. However, it does not require information about incidental findings, a potential harm of screening.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of incidental findings information in an LCS decision aid on screening intent as well as knowledge and valuing of screening benefits and harms.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial conducted online between July 16, 2020, and August 22, 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults 55-80 years, eligible for LCS.

INTERVENTION

LCS video decision aid including information on incidental findings or a control video decision aid.

MAIN MEASURES

Intent to undergo LCS; knowledge regarding the benefit and harms of LCS using six knowledge questions; and valuing of six benefits and harms using rating (1-5 scale, 5 most important) and ranking (ranked 1-6) exercises.

KEY RESULTS

Of 427 eligible individuals approached, 348 (83.1%) completed the study (173 intervention, 175 control). Mean age was 64.5 years, 48.6% were male, 73.0% white, 76.3% with less than a college degree, and 64.1% with income < $50,000. There was no difference between the intervention and controls in percentage intending to pursue screening (70/173, 40.5% vs 73/175, 41.7%, diff 1.2%, 95% CI - 9.1 to 11.5%, p = 0.81). Intervention participants had a higher percentage of correct answers for the incidental findings knowledge than controls (164/173, 94.8% vs 129/175, 73.7%, 95% CI - 28.4 to - 13.8%, p < 0.01). Incidental findings had the fifth highest mean importance rating (4.0 ± 1.1) and the third highest mean ranking (3.6 ± 1.5). There was no difference in mean rating or ranking of incidental findings between intervention and control groups (rating 4.0 vs 3.9, diff 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2, 0.3, p = 0.51; ranking 3.6 vs 3.6, diff 0.02, 95% CI - 0.3, 0.3, p = 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Incidental findings information in a LCS decision aid did not affect LCS intent, but it resulted in more informed individuals regarding these findings. In formulating screening preferences, incidental findings were less important than other benefits and harms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432753.