Primary Care Provider and Patient Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening. A Qualitative Study

Exploring shared decision-making needs in lung cancer screening among high-risk groups and health care providers in China: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The intricate balance between the advantages and risks of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) impedes the utilization of lung cancer screening (LCS). Guiding shared decision-making (SDM) for well-informed choices regarding LCS is pivotal. There has been a notable increase in research related to SDM. However, these studies possess limitations. For example, they may ignore the identification of decision support and needs from the perspective of health care providers and high-risk groups. Additionally, these studies have not adequately addressed the complete SDM process, including pre-decisional needs, the decision-making process, and post-decision experiences. Furthermore, the East-West divide of SDM has been largely ignored. This study aimed to explore the decisional needs and support for shared decision-making for LCS among health care providers and high-risk groups in China.

METHODS

Informed by the Ottawa Decision-Support Framework, we conducted qualitative, face-to-face in-depth interviews to explore shared decision-making among 30 lung cancer high-risk individuals and 9 health care providers. Content analysis was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 4 decisional needs that impair shared decision-making: (1) LCS knowledge deficit; (2) inadequate supportive resources; (3) shared decision-making conceptual bias; and (4) delicate doctor-patient bonds. We identified 3 decision supports: (1) providing information throughout the LCS process; (2) providing shared decision-making decision coaching; and (3) providing decision tools.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers valuable insights into the decisional needs and support required to undergo LCS among high-risk individuals and perspectives from health care providers. Future studies should aim to design interventions that enhance the quality of shared decision-making by offering LCS information, decision tools for LCS, and decision coaching for shared decision-making (e.g., through community nurses). Simultaneously, it is crucial to assess individuals' needs for effective deliberation to prevent conflicts and regrets after arriving at a decision.

Facilitators and Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening during Long COVID: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Study Synthesis of Qualitative Research

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.

A Qualitative Exploration of Stakeholders' Preferences for Early-Stage Rectal Cancer Treatment

As treatment options for patients with rectal cancer evolve, patients with early-stage rectal cancer may have a treatment choice between surgery and a trial of nonoperative management. Patients must consider the treatments' clinical tradeoffs alongside their personal goals and preferences. Shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and clinicians can improve decision quality when patients are faced with preference-sensitive care options. We interviewed 28 stakeholders (13 clinicians and 15 patients) to understand their perspectives on early-stage rectal cancer treatment decision-making. Clinicians included surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists who treat rectal cancer. Adult patients included those diagnosed with early-stage rectal cancer in the past 5 years, recruited from an institutional database. A semi-structured interview guide was developed based on a well-established decision support framework and reviewed by the research team and stakeholders. Interviews were conducted between January 2022 and January 2023. Transcripts were coded by 2 raters and analyzed using thematic analysis. Both clinicians and patients recognized the importance of SDM to support high-quality decisions about the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer. Barriers to SDM included variable clinician motivation due to lack of training or perception of patients' desires or abilities to engage, as well as time-constrained encounters. A decision aid could help facilitate SDM for early-stage rectal cancer by providing standardized, evidence-based information about treatment options that align with clinicians' and patients' decision needs.

Shared decision making in sarcopenia treatment

The implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in management of sarcopenia is still in its nascent stage, especially compared to other areas of medical research. Accumulating evidence has highlighted the importance of SDM in older adults care. The current study overviews general SDM practices and explores the potential advantages and dilemmas of incorporating these concepts into sarcopenia management. We present common patient decision aids available for sarcopenia management and propose future research directions. SDM can be effectively integrated into daily practice with the aid of structured techniques, such as the "seek, help, assess, reach, evaluate" approach, "making good decisions in collaboration" questions, "benefits, risks, alternatives, doing nothing" tool, or "multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision making." Such techniques fully consider patient values and preferences, thereby enhancing adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention measures. Additionally, we review the barriers to and potential solutions to SDM implementation. Further studies are required to investigate measurement and outcomes, coordination and cooperation, and digital technology, such as remote SDM. The study concludes that sarcopenia management must go beyond the single dimension of "Paternalism" choice. Integrating SDM into clinical practice offers promising opportunities to improve patient care, with patient-centered care and partnership of care approaches positively impacting treatment outcomes.

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.

Lung Cancer Screening in People With HIV: A Mixed-Methods Study of Patient and Provider Perspectives

INTRODUCTION

People with HIV are at higher risk of lung cancer; however, there is limited research on attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to lung cancer screening in people with HIV. The objective of this study was to understand the perspectives on lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers.

METHODS

Surveys of people with HIV and HIV-care providers were complemented by qualitative focus groups and interviews designed to understand the determinants of lung cancer screening in people with HIV. Participants were recruited through an academic HIV clinic in Seattle, WA. Qualitative guides were developed by integrating the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Tailored Implementation of Chronic Diseases checklist. Themes that emerged from thematic analyses of qualitative data were compared with surveys in joint displays. All study components were conducted between 2021 and 2022.

RESULTS

Sixty-four people with HIV completed surveys, and 43 participated in focus groups. Eleven providers completed surveys, and 10 were interviewed for the study. Themes from joint displays show overall enthusiasm for lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers, particularly with a tailored and evidence-based approach. Facilitators in this population may include longstanding engagement with providers and health systems and an emphasis on survivorship through preventive healthcare interventions. People with HIV may also face barriers acknowledged by providers, including a high level of medical comorbidities and competing issues such as substance abuse, mental health concerns, and economic instability.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals that people with HIV and their providers have overall enthusiasm toward screening. However, tailored interventions may be needed to overcome specific barriers, including complex decision making in the setting of medical comorbidity and patient competing issues.

A Collaborative Emergency Medicine and Radiology Pulmonary Nodule Program: Identification of Associated Efficacy and Outcomes

PURPOSE

Incidental radiologic findings are commonplace, but the episodic nature of emergency department (ED) care makes it challenging to ensure that patients obtain appropriate follow-up. Rates of follow-up range from 30% to 77%, with some studies demonstrating that more than 30% have no follow-up at all. The aim of this study is to describe and analyze the outcomes of a collaborative emergency medicine and radiology initiative to establish a formal workflow for the follow-up of pulmonary nodules identified during ED care.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of patients referred to the pulmonary nodule program (PNP). Patients were divided into two categories: those with follow-up and those who do not have post-ED follow-up. The primary outcome was determining follow-up rates and outcomes, including patients referred for biopsy. The characteristics of patients who completed follow-up compared with those lost to follow-up were also examined.

RESULTS

A total of 574 patients were referred to the PNP. Initial follow-up was established in 390 (69.1%); 30.8% were considered lost to follow-up, and more than half of these patients did not respond to initial contact. There were minimal differences in characteristics between patients in these two categories. Of the 259 patients who completed PNP follow-up, 26 were referred for biopsy (13%).

CONCLUSIONS

The PNP provided effective transitions of care and potentially improved patient health care. Strategies to further enhance follow-up adherence will provide iterative improvement of the program. The PNP provides an implementation framework for post-ED pulmonary nodule follow-up in other health care systems and can be modified for use with other incidental diagnostic findings.

Changes in Stage at Presentation among Lung and Breast Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic altered access to healthcare by decreasing the number of patients able to receive preventative care and cancer screening. We hypothesized that, given these changes in access to care, radiologic screening for breast and lung cancer would be decreased, and patients with these cancers would consequently present at later stages of their disease.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of 2017 to September 2021 UMass Memorial Tumor Registry data for adult breast and lung cancer patients. Changes in stage at presentation of breast and lung cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic were measured, defined as before and during COVID-19.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant changes in the overall stage of presentation before or during the COVID-19 pandemic for either breast or lung cancer patients. Analysis of case presentation and stage during periods of COVID-19 surges that occurred during the time of this study compared with prepandemic data demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in overall presentation of breast cancer patients in the first surge, with no other statistically significant changes in breast cancer presentation. A nonstatistically significant decrease in lung cancer presentation was seen during the initial surge of COVID-19. There was also a statistically significant increase in early-stage presentation of lung cancer during the second and third COVID-19 surges.

CONCLUSIONS

In the 2 years after the COVID-19 pandemic, we were not able to demonstrate stage migration at presentation of breast and lung cancer patients to later stages despite decreases in overall presentation during the initial 2 years of the COVID pandemic. An increase in early-stage lung cancer during the second and third surges is interesting and could be related to increased chest imaging for COVID pneumonia.

A protocol for a cluster randomized trial of care delivery models to improve the quality of smoking cessation and shared decision making for lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Patients eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) are those at high risk of lung cancer due to their smoking histories and age. While screening for LCS is effective in lowering lung cancer mortality, primary care providers are challenged to meet beneficiary eligibility for LCS from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, including a patient counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit with the use of patient decision aid(s) prior to screening.

METHODS

We will use an effectiveness-implementation type I hybrid design to: 1) identify effective, scalable smoking cessation counseling and SDM interventions that are consistent with recommendations, can be delivered on the same platform, and are implemented in real-world clinical settings; 2) examine barriers and facilitators of implementing the two approaches to delivering smoking cessation and SDM for LCS; and 3) determine the economic implications of implementation by assessing the healthcare resources required to increase smoking cessation for the two approaches by delivering smoking cessation within the context of LCS. Providers from different healthcare organizations will be randomized to usual care (providers delivering smoking cessation and SDM on site) vs. centralized care (smoking cessation and SDM delivered remotely by trained counselors). The primary trial outcomes will include smoking abstinence at 12-weeks and knowledge about LCS measured at 1-week after baseline.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide important new evidence about the effectiveness and feasibility of a novel care delivery model for addressing the leading cause of lung cancer deaths and supporting high-quality decisions about LCS.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

NCT04200534 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04200534.

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

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

Nursing leadership and influence in practice domains at a Veterans Affairs Health Care System

BACKGROUND

Studies in Veteran populations have examined disparities in health service use, care quality, outcomes and increased demands for behavioral health.

PURPOSE

The purpose is to describe the development of nursing leadership roles that influenced practice improvements and demonstrated outcomes related to health disparities in a Veterans Affairs (VA) population over a 12-year period.

METHODS

The Sundean and colleagues' concept analysis of nurse leadership influence was applied to frame the initiative process and impacts.

DISCUSSION

Antecedents and processes that facilitated leadership development included mentorship, disparities expertise, partnerships, consultation, scholarship, dissemination, advocacy, education, and strong coauthor collaboration. Improvements and outcomes included access to services, improved health indicators, tools, workforce, funding, innovations, and nurse investigator studies, consistent with VA priorities and policy related to disparities and equity. Limitations and barriers were addressed.

CONCLUSION

This initiative models' strategies to increase nurse leadership in health equity and care transformation in health systems and community practices.

Preliminary Testing of A Web-Based Lung Cancer Screening Decision Coaching Toolfor Older Chinese American Smokers and Their Providers

OBJECTIVES

To examine the acceptability of a culturally targeted lung cancer screening decision aid developed for older Chinese Americans with a smoking history and primary care providers serving this patient population.

METHODS

Study participants reviewed a web-based decision aid (DA) for lung cancer screening named "Lung Decisions Coaching Tool (LDC-T)." Participants completed a baseline survey and were invited to join an interview. During the interview, participants engaged with the Lung Decisions Coaching Tool and then completed standardized measures of acceptability, usability, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Chinese American smokers (N =22) and Chinese American physicians (N=10) rated the acceptability and usability of a patient version and provider versions of the LDC-T, respectively. Patient version demonstrated high levels of acceptability, usability and satisfaction. Most participants rated the information provided as good or excellent, the amount of tool information was just right, and they thought the tool would be useful for making a screening decision. The tool was well received by participants for ease of use and well-integrated functions. Furthermore, participants indicated they would like to use the tool to help prepare for lung cancer screening shared decision-making with their provider. Similar results were found for the provider version of the LDC-T.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung cancer screening represents an evidence-based approach to reducing lung cancer morbidity and mortality among chronic high-frequency smokers. Study results suggest the acceptability of a culturally targeted lung cancer screening decision aid for Chinese American smokers and providers. Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of the DA in increasing appropriate levels of screening in this underserved population.

Lung cancer screening

Randomised controlled trials, including the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and the NELSON trial, have shown reduced mortality with lung cancer screening with low-dose CT compared with chest radiography or no screening. Although research has provided clarity on key issues of lung cancer screening, uncertainty remains about aspects that might be critical to optimise clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This Review brings together current evidence on lung cancer screening, including an overview of clinical trials, considerations regarding the identification of individuals who benefit from lung cancer screening, management of screen-detected findings, smoking cessation interventions, cost-effectiveness, the role of artificial intelligence and biomarkers, and current challenges, solutions, and opportunities surrounding the implementation of lung cancer screening programmes from an international perspective. Further research into risk models for patient selection, personalised screening intervals, novel biomarkers, integrated cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessments, smoking cessation interventions, and artificial intelligence for lung nodule detection and risk stratification are key opportunities to increase the efficiency of lung cancer screening and ensure equity of access.

Immediate, Remote Smoking Cessation Intervention in Participants Undergoing a Targeted Lung Health Check: Quit Smoking Lung Health Intervention Trial, a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening programs provide an opportunity to support people who smoke to quit, but the most appropriate model for delivery remains to be determined. Immediate face-to-face smoking cessation support for people undergoing screening can increase quit rates, but it is not known whether remote delivery of immediate smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy in this context also is effective.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does an immediate telephone smoking cessation intervention increase quit rates compared with usual care among a population enrolled in a targeted lung health check (TLHC)?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In a single-masked randomized controlled trial, people 55 to 75 years of age who smoke and attended a TLHC were allocated by day of attendance to receive either immediate telephone smoking cessation intervention (TSI) support (starting immediately and lasting for 6 weeks) with appropriate pharmacotherapy or usual care (UC; very brief advice to quit and signposting to smoking cessation services). The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 3 months. Differences between groups were assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifteen people taking part in the screening program who reported current smoking with a mean ± SD age of 63 ± 5.4 years, 48% of whom were women, were randomized to TSI (n = 152) or UC (n = 163). The two groups were well matched at baseline. Self-reported quit rates were higher in the intervention arm, 21.1% vs 8.9% (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.44-5.61; P = .002). Controlling for participant demographics, neither baseline smoking characteristics nor the discovery of abnormalities on low-dose CT imaging modified the effect of the intervention.

INTERPRETATION

Immediate provision of an intensive telephone-based smoking cessation intervention including pharmacotherapy, delivered within a targeted lung screening context, is associated with increased smoking abstinence at 3 months.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ISRCTN registry; No.: ISRCTN12455871; URL: www.IRSCN.com.

Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Patterns Among Primary and Pulmonary Care Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening has the potential to identify lung cancer at an early stage when more treatment options exist. However, discussions with and referrals of screening-eligible patients remain unacceptably low. We need to better understand clinician knowledge, attitudes, and practice patterns to identify strategies to improve lung cancer screening uptake. Prior studies have focused on understanding these factors from physicians only. Nevertheless, many patients receive primary care from nurse practitioners and physician assistants where prevention and early detection conversations are most likely to occur. Therefore, we must engage the full range of clinicians treating screening-eligible patients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe attitudes, beliefs and referral practice patterns, lung cancer screening knowledge, and concordance with lung cancer screening guidelines among nurse practitioners, physicians, and physician assistants in the United States.

METHODS

A descriptive, cross-sectional study was performed using survey methodology with clinical vignettes to examine clinician factors and concordance with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guidelines.

RESULTS

Participants scored low on attitudes toward shared decision-making, high on the importance of shared decision-making in lung cancer screening, and low on barriers to lung cancer screening referral. In addition, midrange scores on empathy toward patients with smoking history were noted. Lung cancer screening knowledge was low regardless of clinician specialty; the most endorsed response when presented with a hypothetical patient was to refer for lung cancer screening using a chest X-ray.

DISCUSSION

Findings demonstrate that most clinicians are nonconcordant with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, erroneously believing a chest X-ray is appropriate for lung cancer screening. Clinicians must follow evidence-based practice guidelines, highlighting the need for targeted continuing education about lung cancer screening for clinicians who treat screening-eligible patients.

Provider and patient perspectives to improve lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography 5 years after Medicare coverage: a qualitative study

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths for both men and women in the U.S., yet uptake of preventive cancer screening for people with a heavy smoking history remains low. This qualitative interview study of patients and providers from a large ambulatory healthcare system in northern and central California reevaluated perceptions of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LCS-LDCT) 5 years after Medicare coverage. We hypothesized that initial attitudes and barriers within the LCS-LDCT discussion and process have likely persisted with little change since Medicare coverage and we sought to understand how these attitudes continue to impact effective implementation and uptake of screening with the goal of identifying opportunities for improvement. Between 2019 and 2020, interviews were conducted with 10 primary care physicians and 30 patients using semi-structured interview guides. Providers and patients expressed that they were both aware and supportive of LCS-LDCT, a change from earlier studies, but continued to report little to no shared decision making nor use of a decision aid despite being Medicare requirements. Creation and incorporation of a single-page, graphic heavy decision aid may help address many of the persistent barriers around implementation for both providers and patients. Given recently expanded guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for LCS-LDCT screening and their coverage by Medicare, it is important for healthcare systems to understand provider and patient perceptions to further improve the implementation of LCS-LDCT to ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality.

Assessment of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility on NCI-Designated Cancer Center Websites

Online lung cancer screening assessments empower patients to learn about their risk for lung cancer and eligibility for screening. However, it is unknown whether these online assessments provide tailored recommendations that are consistent with national guidelines and include information to prepare patients for shared decision-making (SDM) consultations with their healthcare provider. In November 2019, we reviewed 71 NCI-Designated Cancer Center websites to identify US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer screening eligibility and evidence-based features of shared decision-making (SDM). Only 11% of the websites included an online lung cancer screening assessment. Most assessments included tailored recommendations for screening eligibility based on USPSTF guidelines. Assessments designed to support SDM included both potential benefits and harms of undergoing lung cancer screening. Nearly all assessments directed adults to discuss the results with their healthcare provider and reinforced the importance of living a tobacco-free lifestyle. Online lung cancer screening assessments have the potential to put patients in control of knowledge about their lung cancer risk and screening eligibility. While nearly all assessments recommend patients to speak with their healthcare provider about their risk for lung cancer, patients may require more support to initiate and navigate SDM conversations with their providers.

Hospitalization as an opportunity to engage underserved individuals in shared decision-making for lung cancer screening: results from two randomized pilot trials

PURPOSE

Medicare requires tobacco dependence counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement. We hypothesized that initiating SDM during inpatient tobacco treatment visits would increase LCS among patients with barriers to proactively seeking outpatient preventive care.

METHODS

We collected baseline assessments and performed two pilot randomized trials at our safety-net hospital. Pilot 1 tested feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a nurse practitioner initiating SDM for LCS during hospitalization (Inpatient SDM). We collected qualitative data on barriers encountered during Pilot 1. Pilot 2 added a community health worker (CHW) to address barriers to LCS completion (Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation). For both studies, preliminary efficacy was an intention-to-treat analysis of LCS completion at 3 months between intervention and comparator (furnishing of LCS decision aid only) groups.

RESULTS

Baseline assessments showed that patients preferred in-person LCS discussions versus self-reviewing materials; overall 20% had difficulty understanding written information. In Pilot 1, 4% (2/52) in Inpatient SDM versus 2% (1/48, comparator) completed LCS (p = 0.6), despite 89% (89/100) desiring LCS. Primary care providers noted that competing priorities and patient factors (e.g., social barriers to keeping appointments) prevented the intervention from working as intended. In Pilot 2, 50% (5/10) in Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation versus 9% (1/11, comparator) completed LCS (p < 0.05). Many patients were ineligible due to recent diagnostic chest CT (Pilot 1: 255/659; Pilot 2: 239/527).

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation shows promise to improve LCS rates among underserved patients who smoke, but feasibility is limited by recent diagnostic chest CT among inpatients. Implementing CHW-navigation in other clinical settings may facilitate LCS for underserved patients.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03276806 (8 September 2017); NCT03793894 (4 January 2019).

Facilitators and Barriers to Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening: A Framework-Driven Systematic Review

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.

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.

Barriers and facilitators to lung cancer screening and follow-up

Two randomized trials have shown that lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in patients at high-risk for lung malignancy by identifying early-stage cancers, when local cure and control is achievable. The implementation of LCS in the United States has revealed multiple barriers to preventive cancer care. Rates of LCS are disappointingly low with estimates between 5%-18% of eligible patients screened. Equally concerning, follow-up after baseline screening is far lower than that of clinical trials (44-66% v >90%). To optimize the benefits of LCS, programs must identify and address factors related to LCS participation and follow-up while concurrently recognizing and mitigating barriers. As a relatively new screening test, the most effective processes for LCS are uncertain. Therefore, LCS programs have adopted a wide range of approaches without clearly established best practices to guide them, particularly in rural and resource-limited settings. In this narrative review, we identify barriers and facilitators to LCS, focusing on those studies in non-clinical trial settings - reflecting "real world" challenges. Our goal is to identify effective and scalable LCS practices that will increase LCS participation, improve adherence to follow-up, inform strategies for quality improvement, and support new research approaches.

Challenges in initiating a lung cancer screening program: Experiences from two VA medical centers

Establishing a lung cancer screening (LCS) program is an important endeavor that delivers life-saving healthcare to an at-risk population. However, developing a comprehensive LCS program requires critical elements including obtaining institutional level buy-in, hiring necessary personnel, developing appropriate infrastructure and actively engaging primary care providers, subspecialty services, and radiology. The process required to connect such services to deliver an organized LCS program that reaches all eligible candidates must be individualized to each institution's needs and infrastructure. Here we provide detailed experiences from two successful LCS programs, one using a primary care provider-based service and the other using a consult-based service. In each case, we provide the pros and cons of each system. We propose that the decision to setup an ideal LCS program could include a hybrid design that combines aspects of each system.

Health Disparities in Cancer Among American Indians and Alaska Natives

American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) are underserved populations who suffer from several health disparities, 1 of which is cancer. Malignancies, especially cancers of the breast, liver, and lung, are common causes of death in this population. Health care disparities in this population include more limited access to diagnostic radiology because of geographic and/or health system limitations. Early detection of these cancers may be enabled by improving patient and physician access to medical imaging. Awareness by the radiology community of the cancer disparities among this population is needed to support research targeted to this specific ethnic group and to support outreach efforts to provide more imaging opportunities. Providing greater access to imaging facilities will also improve patient compliance with screening recommendations, ultimately improving mortality in these populations.

Lung cancer screening at the VA: Past, present and future

Lung cancer is responsible for more deaths annually in the United States than breast, prostate and colon cancers combined. Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients through early detection. The incidence of lung cancer is higher in the veteran population compared to the general population due, in part, to the prevalence of tobacco use. Early detection of lung cancer is therefore an important goal of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated health care system in the United States. The following will review previous and current initiatives undertaken by the VHA to implement and expand access to lung cancer screening and will highlight target areas of interest to improve uptake and quality of lung cancer screening. Through these initiatives and programs, the VHA aims to provide high quality and equitable access to lung cancer screening for all Veterans that incorporates research that will improve outcomes and potentially inform and optimize the practice of Lung cancer screening across the United States.

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

A Lung Cancer Screening Education Program Impacts both Referral Rates and Provider and Medical Assistant Knowledge at Two Federally Qualified Health Centers

BACKGROUND

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) serve minority and low-socioeconomic populations and provide care to high-risk smokers. These centers frequently experience barriers, including low provider and medical assistant (MA) knowledge around lung cancer screening (LCS). Subsequent low LCS referral rates by providers at FQHCs limit utilization of LCS in eligible, high-risk, underserved patients.

METHODS

Providers and MAs from two FQHCs participated in a LCS educational session. A pre-educational survey was administered at the start of the session and a post-educational survey at the end. The intervention included a presentation with education around non-small cell lung cancer, LCS, tobacco cessation, and shared-decision making. Both surveys were used to evaluate changes in provider and MA ability to determine eligible patients for LCS. The Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction was used to measure the impact.

RESULTS

A total of 29 providers and 28 MAs enrolled in the study from two FQHCs. There was an improvement, P < .009 and P < .015 respectively, in provider and MA confidence in identifying patients for LCS. Additionally, one year prior to the program, 9 low-dose computed tomography (LDCTs) were ordered at one of the FQHCs and 0 at the other. After the program, over 100 LDCTs were ordered at each FQHC.

CONCLUSIONS

A targeted LCS educational program improves provider and MAs' ability to identify eligible LCS patients and is associated with an increase in the number of patients referred to LDCT at FQHCs.

Guideline-Recommended Lung Cancer Screening Adherence Is Superior With a Centralized Approach

BACKGROUND

To recognize fully the benefit of lung cancer screening (LCS), annual adherence must approach the high levels seen in the National Lung Screening Trial. Emerging data suggest that annual adherence is poor and that a centralized approach to screening improves adherence.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Do differences in adherence exist between a centralized and decentralized approach to LCS within a hybrid program and what are predictors of adherence?

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective evaluation of a single-center hybrid LCS program was conducted to compare outcomes including patient eligibility and adherence between the centralized and decentralized approaches.

METHODS

Patient demographics and outcomes were compared between those screened with a centralized and decentralized approach and between adherent and nonadherent patients using two-sample t tests, χ ² tests, or analyses of variance, as appropriate. Annual adherence analysis was conducted using data from patients who remained eligible for screening with a baseline Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score of 1 or 2. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association between adherence and the primary exposure, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A cohort of 1,117 patients underwent baseline low-dose CT imaging. Two hundred eleven patients (19%) were ineligible by United States Preventative Services Task Force criteria and most (90%) were screened with the decentralized approach. After exclusions, 765 patients with Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2 remained eligible for annual screening. Overall adherence was 56%; however, adherence in the centralized program was 70%, compared with 41% with the decentralized approach (P < .001). Individuals screened in a decentralized approach were 73% less likely to be adherent (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.19-0.37). A greater proportion of patients with three or more comorbidities were screened outside the centralized program.

INTERPRETATION

Those screened using a centralized approach were more likely to meet eligibility criteria for LCS and more likely to return for annual screening than those screened using a decentralized approach.

Examination of the Association Between Access to Care and Lung Cancer Screening Among High-Risk Smokers

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of access to care on the uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening among a diverse sample of screening-eligible patients. Methods: We utilized a cross-sectional study design. Our sample included patients evaluated for lung cancer screening at a large academic medical center (AMC) between 2015 and 2017 who met 2013 USPSTF guidelines for LDCT screening eligibility. The completion of LDCT screening (yes, no) was the primary dependent variable. The independent variable was access to care (insurance type, living within the AMC service area). We utilized binary logistic regression analyses to examine the influence of access to care on screening completion after adjusting for demographic factors (age, sex, race) and smoking history (current smoking status, smoking pack-year history). Results: A total of 1,355 individuals met LDCT eligibility criteria, and of those, 29.8% (n = 404) completed screening. Regression analysis results showed individuals with Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.03-2.22), individuals living within the AMC service area (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.21-2.40), and those aged 65-74 years (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-1.98) had higher odds of receiving LDCT lung cancer screening. Lower odds of screening were associated with having Medicare insurance (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22-0.41) and out-of-pocket (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.47). Conclusion: Access to care was independently associated with lowered screening rates. Study results are consistent with prior research identifying the importance of access factors on uptake of cancer early detection screening behaviors.

Lung cancer screening implementation: Complexities and priorities

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.

A Comparison of Web-Based Cancer Risk Calculators That Inform Shared Decision-making for Lung Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION

To align patient preferences and understanding with harm-benefit perception, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandates that providers engage patients in a collaborative shared decision-making (SDM) visit before LDCT. Nonetheless, patients and providers often turn instead to the web for help making decisions. Several web-based lung cancer risk calculators (LCRCs) provide risk predictions and screening recommendations; however, the accuracy, consistency, and subsequent user interpretation of these predictions between LCRCs is ambiguous. We conducted a systematic review to assess this variability.

DESIGN

Through a systematic Internet search, we identified 10 publicly available LCRCs and categorized their input variables: demographic factors, cancer history, smoking status, and personal/environmental factors. To assess variance in LCRC risk prediction outputs, we developed 16 hypothetical patients along a risk continuum, illustrated by randomly assigned input variables, and individually compared them to each LCRC against the empirically validated "gold-standard" PLCO risk model in order to evaluate the accuracy of the LCRCs within identical time-windows.

RESULTS

From the inclusion criteria, 11 calculators were initially identified. The analyzed calculators also vary in output characteristics and risk depiction for hypothetical patients. There were 13 total instances across ten hypothetical patients in which the sample standard error exceeded the mean risk percentage across all general samples and set standard calculations. The largest measured difference is 16.49% for patient 8, and the smallest difference is 0.01% for patient 2. The largest measured difference is 16.49% for patient 8, and the smallest difference is 0.01% for patient 2.

CONCLUSION

Substantial variability in the depiction of lung cancer risk for hypothetical patients exists across the web-based LCRCs due to their respective inputs and risk prediction models. To foster informed decision-making in the SDM-LDCT context, the input variables, risk prediction models, risk depiction, and screening recommendations must be standardized to best practice.

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.

Lung Cancer Screening Policy in Alaska and Occupational Therapy

Lung cancer claims more lives than any other cancer in the world and remains difficult to diagnose in the early stages. This article examines the current state of lung cancer detection and screening via low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in Alaska and considers potential opportunities for occupational therapy practitioners in primary care settings. Medicare requires at least one documented shared decision-making encounter between provider and patient before LDCT lung cancer screening occurs. As a result of time constraints, documentation requirements, and the plethora of preventive health services they provide, primary care physicians often lack the time and training to conduct this essential service. This provides an opportunity for occupational therapy practitioners to perform these services as part of their practice and to play a role in this area as patient educators and prevention specialists in primary care settings. What This Article Adds: This article explores the national health crisis of lung cancer and describes how occupational therapists can participate in providing care in primary care settings.

Healthcare Access, Utilization, and Preventive Health Behaviors by Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening

In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended low-dose computed tomography screening for smokers at high risk of lung cancer; however, use remains low. Efforts to promote lung cancer screening need to consider how receptive this population is to preventive healthcare and cancer screening. In addition, because of demonstrated heterogeneity in behaviors by smoking status, interventions may need to differ among eligible high-risk subgroups. To assess the engagement of high-risk smokers in other preventive healthcare behaviors, we examined healthcare use, including non-lung cancer screening, and healthcare provider discussions regarding screening by eligibility for lung cancer screening. We used the 2015 National Health Interview Survey to assess smoking history, healthcare use, cancer screening, vaccinations, and healthcare provider discussions regarding non-lung cancer screening. We calculated weighted prevalence estimates and prevalence ratios comparing eligible and ineligible current and former smokers to never smokers. Eligible current and former smokers had significantly different healthcare utilization and screening concordance compared to never smokers and to each other. Compared to never smokers, eligible current smokers were significantly less likely to be concordant with breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening while eligible former smokers were only less likely to be concordant with breast cancer screening. Eligible current smokers were less likely to report physician discussions about non-lung screening tests. Provider discussions about screening and engagement in preventive healthcare differed among current and former smokers eligible for lung cancer screening. Intervention efforts to increase lung cancer screening levels will likely need to differ as well.

Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: How Well Are We "Sharing"?

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces lung cancer mortality, but it also carries a range of risks. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process of engaging patients in their health care decisions and is a vital component of LCS.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the quality of SDM among patients recently assessed for LCS?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Cross-sectional study of screened patients recruited from two academic tertiary care centers in the South Central Region of the United States. Self-reported surveys assessed patient demographics, values related to outcomes of LCS, knowledge, SDM components including receipt of educational materials, and decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Recently screened patients (n = 266) possessed varied LCS knowledge, answering an average of 41.4% of questions correctly. Patients valued finding cancer early over concerns about harms. Patients indicated that LCS benefits were presented to them by a health care provider far more often than harms (68.3% vs 20.8%, respectively), and 30.7% reported they received educational materials about LCS during the screening process. One-third of patients had some decisional conflict (33.6%) related to their screening decisions, whereas most patients (86.6%) noted that they were involved in the screening decision as much as they wanted. In multivariate models, non-White race and having less education were related to lower knowledge scores. Non-White patients and former smokers were more likely to be conflicted about the screening decision. Most patients (n = 227 [85.3%]) indicated that a health care provider had discussed smoking cessation or abstinence with them.

INTERPRETATION

Among recently screened patients, the quality of decision-making about LCS is highly variable. The low use of educational materials including decision aids and imbalance of conveying benefit vs risk information to patients is concerning. A structured approach using decision aids may assist with providing a balanced presentation of information and may improve the quality of SDM.

Smoking cessation and shared decision-making practices about lung cancer screening among primary care providers

Objective

We describe primary care providers’ current practice patterns related to smoking cessation counseling and lung cancer screening (LCS).

Methods

Family, internal medicine, and pulmonary medicine providers from two medical centers were asked to complete an electronic survey to report their practice patterns.

Results

Of 52 participating providers, most reported initiating three major components of a smoking cessation intervention often or very often: advise to quit (50, 96%), assess willingness to quit (47, 90%), and assist with counseling or pharmacotherapy (49, 94%). However, other components were less commonly initiated such as arranging follow‐ups (only 11 providers indicated recommending them often or very often, 21%) and less than half of providers reported that they often or very often recommend cessation counseling or pharmacotherapy of any type (except varenicline), though family medicine providers were more likely to recommend pharmacotherapy compared to the other specialists (p < 0.01). The majority of providers (47, 92%) reported that they engage in informed/shared decision‐making about LCS, although only about one‐third (17, 33%) indicated using a patient decision aid. Pulmonary medicine providers were more likely to use decision aids than providers from internal or family medicine (p < 0.04).

Conclusions

Within the context of LCS, primary care providers report often having conversations about smoking cessation with their patients who smoke, have no clear preference for type of treatment, and rarely use follow‐up calls or visits pertaining to quitting smoking. While many providers report engaging in shared decision‐making about LCS, few use a decision aid for this conversation.

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

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

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.

How Health-Care Organizations Implement Shared Decision-making When It Is Required for Reimbursement: The Case of Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stipulate shared decision-making (SDM) counseling as a prerequisite to lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement, despite well-known challenges implementing SDM in practice.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How have health-care organizations implemented SDM for LCS?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

For this qualitative study, we used data from in-depth, semistructured interviews with key informants directly involved in implementing SDM for LCS, managing SDM for LCS, or both. We identified respondents using a snowball sampling technique and used template analysis to identify and analyze responses thematically.

RESULTS

We interviewed 30 informants representing 23 health-care organizations located in 12 states and 4 Census regions. Respondents described two types of SDM for LCS programs: centralized models (n = 7), in which front-end practitioners (eg, primary care providers) referred patients to an LCS clinic where trained staff (eg, advanced practice nurses) delivered SDM at the time of screening, or decentralized models (n = 10), in which front-end practitioners delivered SDM before referring patients for screening. Some organizations used both models simultaneously (n = 6). Respondents discussed tradeoffs between SDM quality and access. They perceived centralized models as enhancing SDM quality, but limiting patient access to care, and vice versa. Respondents reported ongoing challenges with limited resources and budgetary constraints, ambiguity regarding what constitutes SDM, and an absence of benchmarks for evaluating SDM for LCS quality.

INTERPRETATION

Those responsible for developing and managing SDM for LCS programs voiced concerns regarding both patient access and SDM quality, regardless of organizational context, or the SDM for LCS model implemented. The challenge facing these organizations, and those wanting to help patients and clinicians balance the tradeoffs inherent with LCS, is how to move beyond a check-box documentation requirement to a process that enables LCS to be offered to all high-risk patients, but used only by those who are informed and for whom screening represents a value-concordant service.

Low Provider Knowledge Is Associated With Less Evidence-Based Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread recommendation and supportive policies, screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) is incompletely implemented in the US healthcare system. Low provider knowledge of the lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines represents a potential barrier to implementation. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that low provider knowledge of guidelines is associated with less provider-reported screening with LDCT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was performed in a large academic medical center and affiliated Veterans Health Administration in the Mid-South United States that comprises hospital and community-based practices. Participants included general medicine providers and specialists who treat patients aged >50 years. The primary exposure was LCS guideline knowledge (US Preventive Services Task Force/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). High knowledge was defined as identifying 3 major screening eligibility criteria (55 years as initial age of screening eligibility, smoking status as current or former smoker, and smoking history of ≥30 pack-years), and low knowledge was defined as not identifying these 3 criteria. The primary outcome was self-reported LDCT order/referral within the past year, and the secondary outcome was screening chest radiograph. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of screening by knowledge.

RESULTS

Of 625 providers recruited, 407 (65%) responded, and 378 (60.5%) were analyzed. Overall, 233 providers (62%) demonstrated low LCS knowledge, and 224 (59%) reported ordering/referring for LDCT. The aOR of ordering/referring LDCT was less among providers with low knowledge (0.41; 95% CI, 0.24-0.71) than among those with high knowledge. More providers with low knowledge reported ordering screening chest radiographs (aOR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.4-5.0) within the past year.

CONCLUSIONS

Referring provider knowledge of LCS guidelines is low and directly proportional to the ordering rate for LDCT in an at-risk US population. Strategies to advance evidence-based LCS should incorporate provider education and system-level interventions to address gaps in provider knowledge.

Occurrence of Discussion about Lung Cancer Screening Between Patients and Healthcare Providers in the USA, 2017

Computed tomography lung cancer screening reduces lung cancer mortality. However, screening is underutilized. This study assesses the extent to which providers discuss lung cancer screening with their patients, as a lack of discussion and counseling may serve as a potential cause of low utilization rates. Data from 1667 adults aged 55-80 years sampled in the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey was utilized. A weighted multivariable logistic regression model was fit with past-year discussion about lung cancer screening with a provider as the outcome. The adjusted odds of discussion were higher for current cigarette smokers compared to non-cigarette smokers (adjusted odds ratio = 3.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75 to 8.74). Despite higher odds, the absolute prevalence was low with only 18% (95% CI, 11.8 to 24.2%) of current adult smokers reporting a past-year discussion. Knowledge of screening from trusted sources of medical information, such as doctors, can increase screening rates and may ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality.

Potential Impact of Cessation Interventions at the Point of Lung Cancer Screening on Lung Cancer and Overall Mortality in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography is recommended for adults aged 55 to 80 years with a greater than or equal to 30 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years. The 50% who are current smokers should be offered cessation interventions, but information about the impact of adding cessation to screening is limited.

METHODS

We used an established lung cancer simulation model to compare the effects on mortality of a hypothetical one-time cessation intervention and annual screening versus annual screening only among screen-eligible individuals born in 1950 or 1960. Model inputs were derived from national data and included smoking history, probability of quitting with and without intervention, lung cancer risk and treatment effectiveness, and competing tobacco-related mortality. We tested the sensitivity of results under different assumptions about screening use and cessation efficacy.

RESULTS

Smoking cessation reduces lung cancer mortality and delays overall deaths versus screening only across all assumptions. For example, if screening was used by 30% of screen-eligible individuals born in 1950, adding an intervention with a 10% quit probability reduces lung cancer deaths by 14% and increases life years gained by 81% compared with screening alone. The magnitude of cessation benefits varied under screening uptake rates, cessation effectiveness, and birth cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation interventions have the potential to greatly enhance the impact of lung cancer screening programs. Evaluation of specific interventions, including costs and feasibility of implementation and dissemination, is needed to determine the best possible strategies and realize the full promise of lung cancer screening.

Practice, clinician, and patient factors associated with the adoption of lung cancer screening

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography in adults meeting certain criteria. This study seeks to assess lung cancer screening uptake in three health systems.

SETTING

This study was part of a randomized controlled trial to engage underserved populations in preventive care and includes 45 primary care practices in eight states.

METHODS

Practice and clinician characteristics were manually collected. Lung cancer was measured from electronic health record data. A generalized linear mixed model was used to assess characteristics associated with screening.

RESULTS

Patient records between 2012 and 2016 were examined. Lung cancer screening uptake overall increased only slightly after the guideline change (2.8-5.6%, p < 0.01). One health system did not show an increase in uptake (0.2-0.1%, p = 0.32), another had a clinically insignificant increase (1.5-2.9%, p < 0.01), and the third nearly doubled its higher baseline screening rate (10.4-19.1%, p < 0.01). Within the third health system, patients more likely to be screened were older, male, had more comorbid conditions, visited the office more frequently, were seen in practices closer to the screening clinic, or were uninsured or covered by Medicare or Medicaid.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain patients appeared more likely to be screened. The only health system with increased lung cancer screening explicitly promoted screening rather than relying on clinicians to implement the new guideline. Systems approaches may help increase the low uptake of lung cancer screening.

National Lung Cancer Screening Utilization Trends in the Veterans Health Administration

Background

Many Veterans are high risk for lung cancer. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is an effective strategy for lung cancer early detection in a high-risk population. Our objective was to describe and compare annual and geographic utilization trends for LDCT screening in the Veteran's Health Administration (VHA).

Methods

A national retrospective cohort of screened Veterans from January 1, 2011 to May 31, 2018 was used to calculate annual and regional rates of initial LDCT utilization per 1000 eligible Veterans. We identified Veterans with a first LDCT exam using common procedure terminology codes G0297 or 71250 and described as "lung cancer screening," "screening," or "LCS." The number of screen-eligible Veterans per year was calculated as unique Veterans aged 55 to 80 years seen at a Veterans Affairs medical center (VAMC) in that year, multiplied by 32% (estimated proportion with eligible smoking history). We present 95% confidence intervals (CI) for rates.

Results

Screened Veterans had a mean age of 66.1 years (standard deviation [SD] = 5.6); 95.5% male; 77.4% Caucasian. There were 119 300 LDCT exams, of which 80 819 (67.7%) were initial. Nationally, initial screens increased from 0 (95% CI = 0.00 to 0.00) in 2011 to 29.6 (95% CI = 29.26 to 29.88) scans per 1000 eligible Veterans in 2018 (P_trend < .001). Initial screens increased over time within all geographic regions, most prominently in northeastern and Florida VAMCs.

Conclusion

VHA LDCT utilization increased from 2011 to 2018. However, overall utilization remained low. Future interventions are needed to increase lung cancer screening utilization among eligible Veterans.

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on lung cancer screening in the UK: a qualitative study

Background

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to decrease mortality. Low lung cancer survival rates in the UK, driven primarily by late-stage presentation, provide the impetus for implementing screening. Nascent guidance on screening in the UK recommends primary care case-finding. However, the potential impact and acceptability on primary care, and the opportunistic utilisation of other case-finding routes, such as pharmacies, smoking cessation services, and respiratory clinics, have not been fully explored.

Aim

To explore healthcare professionals’ views and perspectives about lung cancer screening and their preparedness and willingness to be involved in its implementation.

Design & setting

A qualitative study was carried out with semi-structured interviews conducted with GPs, pharmacists, staff from smoking cessation services within Southwark and Lambeth in London, and staff from respiratory clinics in Guys’ and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London between April 2018 and December 2018.

Method

Sixteen participants were interviewed and the interview transcripts were analysed thematically.

Results

Participants described lung cancer screening as an important diagnostic tool for capturing lung cancer at an earlier stage and in increasing survivorship. However, the majority expressed a lack of awareness and understanding, uncertainty and concerns about the validity of screening, and the potential impact on their patients and workload.

Conclusion

Study participants had mixed opinions about lung cancer screening and expressed their concerns about its implementation. Addressing these concerns by providing resources and effective and detailed guidelines for their use may lead to greater engagement and willingness to be involved in lung cancer screening.

"We Just Never Have Enough Time": Clinician Views of Lung Cancer Screening Processes and Implementation

RATIONALE

Despite a known mortality benefit, lung cancer screening (LCS) implementation has been unexpectedly slow. New programs face barriers to implementation, which may include lack of clinician engagement or beliefs that the intervention is not beneficial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate diverse clinician perspectives on their views of LCS and their experience with LCS implementation and processes.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS. Clinicians were drawn from three medical centers, representing diverse specialties and practice settings. All participants practiced at sites with formal lung cancer screening programs. We performed semi-structured interviews with probes designed to elicit opinions of LCS, perceived evidence gaps, and recommendations for improvements. Transcribed interviews were iteratively reviewed and coded using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants (n=24) included LCS coordinators, pulmonologists, physician and non-physician primary care providers (PCPs), a surgeon, and a radiologist. Most clinicians expressed that the evidence supporting LCS was adequate to support clinical adoption, though most PCPs had little direct knowledge and based decisions on local recommendations or endorsement by the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF). Many PCPs endorsed lack of knowledge of eligibility requirements and screening strategy (e.g. annual while eligible). Clinicians with more lung cancer screening knowledge, including several PCPs, identified a number of gaps in the current evidence that tempered enthusiasm, including: unclear ideal screening interval, populations with high cancer risk that do not qualify under USPSTF, indications to stop screening, and the role of serious comorbidities. Support for centralized programs and LCS coordinators was strong, but not uniform. Clinicians were frustrated by time limitations during a patient encounter, costs to the patient, and issues with insurance coverage. Many gaps in informatics support were identified. Clinicians recommended working to improve informatics support, continuing to clarify clinician responsibilities, and working on increasing public awareness of LCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite working within programs that have adopted many recommended care processes to support LCS, clinicians identified a number of issues in providing high-quality LCS. Many of these issues are best addressed by improved support of LCS within the electronic health record and continued education of staff and patients.

Understanding barriers to lung cancer screening in primary care

Background

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan for lung cancer screening is underutilized. Studies suggest that up to one-third of providers do not know the current lung cancer screening guidelines. Thus, identifying the barriers to utilization of LDCT scan is essential.

Methods

Primary care providers in three different healthcare settings in the United States were surveyed to assess provider knowledge of LDCT scan screening criteria, lung cancer screening practices, and barriers to the utilization of LDCT scan screening. Fisher’s Exact, Chi-Squared, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare provider responses. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test the association between provider characteristics and the likelihood of utilizing LDCT scan for lung cancer screening.

Results

The survey was sent to 614 providers, with a 15.7% response rate. Overall, 29.2% of providers report never ordering LDCT scans for eligible patients. Providers practicing at a community or academic hospital more frequently order LDCT scans than those practicing at a safety net hospital. Academic- and community-based providers received a significantly higher mean knowledge score than safety net-based providers [academic 6.84 (SD 1.33), community 6.72 (SD 1.46), safety net 5.85 (SD 1.38); P<0.01]. Overall, only 6.2% of respondents correctly identified all six Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services eligibility criteria when challenged with three incorrect criteria. Common barriers to utilization of LDCT scan included failure of the electronic medical record (EMR) to notify providers of eligible patients (54.7%), patient refusal (37%), perceived high false-positive rate leading to unnecessary procedures (18.9%), provider time constraints (16.8%), and lack of insurance coverage (13.7%).

Conclusions

Provider knowledge of lung cancer screening guidelines varies, perhaps contributing to underutilization of LDCT scan for lung cancer screening. Improved provider education at safety net hospitals and improving EMR-based best practice alerts may improve the rate of lung cancer screening.

Barriers to and Interest in Lung Cancer Screening Among Latino and Non-Latino Current and Former Smokers

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in Latinos. In a telephone survey, we assessed perceptions about lung cancer and awareness of, interest in, and barriers to lung screening among older current and former smokers. We compared Latino and non-Latino responses adjusting for age, sex, education, and smoking status using logistic regression models. Of the 460 patients who completed the survey (51.5% response rate), 58.0% were women, 49.3% former smokers, 15.7% Latino, with mean age 63.6 years. More Latinos believed that lung cancer could be prevented compared to non-Latinos (74.6% vs. 48.2%, OR 3.07, CI 1.89-5.01), and less worried about developing lung cancer (34.8% vs. 50.3%, OR 0.44, CI 0.27-0.72). Most participants were not aware of lung screening (44.1% Latinos vs. 34.3% Non-Latinos, OR 1.24, CI 0.79-1.94), but when informed, more Latinos wanted to be screened (90.7% vs. 67%, OR 4.58, CI 2.31-9.05). Latinos reported fewer barriers to lung screening.