Poghosyan H, Richman I, Sarkar S, Presley CJ. Lung cancer screening use among screening-eligible adults with disabilities.
J Am Geriatr Soc 2024;
72:1155-1165. [PMID:
38357789 PMCID:
PMC11018473 DOI:
10.1111/jgs.18795]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2023] [Revised: 01/10/2024] [Accepted: 01/15/2024] [Indexed: 02/16/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Lung cancer screening (LCS) use among adults with disabilities has not been well characterized. We estimated the prevalence of LCS use by disability types and counts and investigated the association between disability counts and LCS utilization among LCS-eligible adults.
METHODS
We used cross-sectional data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Lung Cancer Screening Module. Based on the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for LCS, the sample included 4407 LCS-eligible adults, aged 55-79 years, with current or former (quit smoking in the past 15 years) tobacco use history of at least 30 pack-years. Disability types included limitations in hearing, vision, cognition, mobility, self-care, and independent living. We also categorized respondents by number of disabilities (no disability, 1 disability, 2 disabilities, 3+ disabilities). We utilized descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression analyses to determine the association between disability counts and the receipt of LCS (yes/no) in the past 12 months.
RESULTS
In 2019, 16.4% of LCS-eligible adults were screened for lung cancer. Overall, 49.6% of participants had no disability, and 14.5% had >3 disabilities. Mobility was the most prevalent disability type (35.4%), followed by cognitive impairment (18.2%) and hearing (16.6%). LCS was more prevalent in adults with disability in self-care versus no disability in self-care (24.0% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.01), disability in independent living versus no disability in independent living (22.2% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.02), and cognitive impairment disability versus no cognitive impairment (22.1% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.03). The prevalence rates of LCS among groups of LCS-eligible adults with different disability counts were not significant (p = 0.17).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the lack of clinical guidelines on LCS among individuals with disabilities, some individuals with disabilities are being screened for lung cancer. Future research should address this knowledge gap to determine clinical benefit versus harm of LCS among those with disabilities.
Collapse