Piloting electronic screening forms in primary care: findings from a mixed methods study to identify patients eligible for low dose CT lung cancer screening

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.

Electronic Health Record Prompt to Improve Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. Combusted tobacco use, the primary risk factor, accounts for 90% of all lung cancers. Early detection of lung cancer improves survival, yet lung cancer screening rates are much lower than those of other cancer screening tests. Electronic health record (EHR) systems are an underutilized tool that could improve screening rates.

METHODS

This study was conducted in the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical Group, a university-affiliated network in New Brunswick, NJ. Two novel EHR workflow prompts were implemented on July 1, 2018. These prompts included fields to determine tobacco use and lung cancer screening eligibility and facilitated low-dose computed tomography ordering for eligible patients. The prompts were designed to improve tobacco use data entry, allowing for better lung cancer screening eligibility identification. Data were analyzed in 2022 retrospectively for the period July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019. The analyses represented 48,704 total patient visits.

RESULTS

The adjusted odds of patient record completeness to determine eligibility for low-dose computed tomography (AOR=1.19, 95% CI=1.15, 1.23), eligibility for low-dose computed tomography (AOR=1.59, 95% CI=1.38, 1.82), and whether low-dose computed tomography was ordered (AOR=1.04, 95% CI=1.01, 1.07) all significantly increased after the electronic medical record prompts were implemented.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings show the utility and benefit of EHR prompts in primary care settings to increase identification for lung cancer screening eligibility as well as increased low-dose computed tomography ordering.

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.

Applied techniques for putting pre-visit planning in clinical practice to empower patient-centered care in the pandemic era: a systematic review and framework suggestion

Background

One of the main elements of patient-centered care is an enhancement of patient preparedness. Thus, pre-visit planning assessment tools was emerged to prepare and involve patients in their treatment process.

Objective

The main objective of this article was to review the applied tools and techniques for consideration of putting pre-visit planning into practice.

Methods

Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE, and PubMed databases were searched using keywords from January 2001 to November 2020. The review was completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Then, qualitative analysis was done to suggest an appropriate framework by mapping the main concepts.

Results

Out of 385 citations were retrieved in initial database searches, 49 studies from ten countries were included. Applied pre-visit techniques can be classified into eight categories. Our results showed that almost 81% of studies were related to procedures that were done between each visit, while 42% of articles were related to before visits. Accordingly, the main approach of included articles was patient preparedness. While 38 studies reported this approach is effective, three studies reported the effectiveness of such tools as moderate, only two articles believed it had a low effect on improving patient-centered care.

Conclusion

This survey summarized the characteristics of published studies on pre-visit planning in the proposed framework. This approach could enhance the quality of patient care alongside enhancement patient-provider communication. However, such an approach can also be helpful to control pandemic diseases by reducing unnecessary referrals.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06456-7.

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

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

Primary care providers' views on a future lung cancer screening program

BACKGROUND

The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated that screening with low-dose computed tomography significantly reduces mortality from lung cancer in high-risk individuals.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the role preferences and information needs of primary care providers (PCPs) in a future organized lung cancer screening program.

METHODS

We purposively sampled PCPs from diverse health regions of Ontario and from different practice models including family health teams and community health centres. We also recruited family physicians with a leadership role in cancer screening. We used focus groups and a nominal group process to identify informational priorities. Two analysts systematically applied a coding scheme to interview transcripts.

RESULTS

Four groups were held with 34 providers and administrative staff [28 (82%) female, 21 (62%) physicians, 7 (20%) other health professionals and 6 (18%) administrative staff]. PCPs and staff were generally positive about a potential lung cancer screening program but had variable views on their involvement. Informational needs included evidence of potential benefits and harms of screening. Most providers preferred that a new program be modelled on positive features of an existing breast cancer screening program. Lung cancer screening was viewed as a new opportunity to counsel patients about smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of a future lung cancer screening program should consider the wide variability in the roles that PCPs preferred. An explicit link to existing smoking cessation programs was seen as essential. As providers had significant information needs, learning materials and opportunities should be developed with them.