Lung cancer screening decisional needs among African American smokers of lower socioeconomic status

Shared Decision Making Among Racially and/or Ethnically Diverse Populations in Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators

PURPOSE

Disparities in the use of shared decision making (SDM) affect minoritized patients. We sought to identify the barriers and facilitators to SDM among diverse patients.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review in adherence to the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodologic framework. Our search of 4 databases-PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, and PsycINFO-used controlled vocabulary and key word terms related to SDM in the care of racially and/or ethnically diverse adults in the primary care setting. We included peer-reviewed studies conducted in the United States or Canada that evaluated the process of decision making and that had populations in which more than 50% of patients were from racial and/or ethnic minorities. Unique records were uploaded to a screening platform for independent review by 2 team members. We used grounded theory to guide our inductive approach and completed a thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies met all inclusion criteria. We identified 5 overarching themes: (1) factors regarding the decision-making process during the clinical encounter, (2) clinician practice characteristics, (3) trust in the clinician/health care system, (4) cultural congruence between clinician and patient, and (5) extrinsic factors affecting the decision-making process. Barriers of SDM included cultural and language discordance; prejudice, bias, and stereotypes; mistrust; and clinician time constraints. Facilitators of SDM included cultural concordance between clinician and patient; clinician language competence; and clear, honest, and humanistic communication with patients having the ability to ask questions.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a set of potentially modifiable factors that facilitate or impede SDM. Our findings can help inform strategies and interventions to improve SDM among racially and/or ethnically diverse patient populations.

Knowledge and beliefs about lung cancer screening among Black individuals at high risk: a qualitative approach

Background

Despite its efficacy in reducing lung cancer (LC)-specific mortality by 20%, screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in eligible groups remains low (5-16%). Black individuals are more commonly affected by LC than other racial/ethnic groups in the United States (U.S.) but less likely to undergo LC screening (LCS). Our study aimed to explore the knowledge and beliefs of Black individuals at high risk regarding LCS.

Methods

Black individuals (n=17) who met the 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) LCS eligibility criteria were recruited in upstate New York. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio recorded, and transcribed to explore knowledge and beliefs that could influence the uptake of LCS. A qualitative thematic analysis method was used to identify and analyze themes within the data.

Results

We identified principal themes about LC and LCS. Although most participants reported that smoking was the major risk factor for LC, some participants placed more emphasis on other factors as the major risk factors for LC and de-emphasized the role of smoking. Most participants were not aware that screening for LC existed. Several barriers and facilitators for LCS were identified.

Conclusions

Awareness about LCS among Black individuals is low. Addressing barriers may help increase LCS rates among Black individuals, ultimately reducing their LC mortality. The findings from our study have important implications in designing more effective interventions involving community health workers and healthcare clinicians to increase LCS uptake among Black individuals at high risk.

Pack-Year Smoking History: An Inadequate and Biased Measure to Determine Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility

PURPOSE

Pack-year smoking history is an imperfect and biased measure of cumulative tobacco exposure. The use of pack-year smoking history to determine lung cancer screening eligibility in the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guideline may unintentionally exclude many high-risk individuals, especially those from racial and ethnic minority groups. It is unclear whether using a smoking duration cutoff instead of a smoking pack-year cutoff would improve the selection of individuals for screening.

METHODS

We analyzed 49,703 individuals with a smoking history from the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS) and 22,126 individuals with a smoking history from the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS) to assess eligibility for screening under the USPSTF guideline versus a proposed guideline that replaces the ≥20-pack-year criterion with a ≥20-year smoking duration criterion.

RESULTS

Under the USPSTF guideline, only 57.6% of Black patients with lung cancer in the SCCS would have qualified for screening, whereas a significantly higher percentage of White patients with lung cancer (74.0%) would have qualified (P < .001). Under the proposed guideline, the percentage of Black and White patients with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening increased to 85.3% and 82.0%, respectively, eradicating the disparity in screening eligibility between the groups. In the BWHS, using a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff increased the percentage of Black women with lung cancer who would have qualified for screening from 42.5% to 63.8%.

CONCLUSION

Use of a 20-year smoking duration cutoff instead of a 20-pack-year cutoff greatly increases the proportion of patients with lung cancer who would qualify for screening and eliminates the racial disparity in screening eligibility between Black versus White individuals; smoking duration has the added benefit of being easier to calculate and being a more precise assessment of smoking exposure compared with pack-year smoking history.

Revisiting the lung cancer screening eligibility criteria to promote equity for Black individuals

BACKGROUND

Early detection using low-dose computed tomography reduces lung-cancer-specific mortality by 20% among high-risk individuals. Blacks are less likely than Whites to meet lung cancer screening (LCS) criteria under both the former and the updated United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. The purpose of this study was to assess racial disparities in LCS eligibility and to propose tailored eligibility criteria for Blacks to enable equitable screening rate between Whites and Blacks.

METHODS

Data for this study were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (2017-2021). 101,552 subjects were included in the final analysis. By employing a systematic approach, we sought cut-off points at which Blacks were equally likely as Whites to be eligible for LCS. We evaluated the minimum age and smoking pack-years for Blacks while we retained the 2021 USPSTF criteria for Whites. The final decision was based on the minimum Wald's Chi-square statistics.

RESULTS

The model we employed identified cut-off points at which Blacks were equally likely as Whites to be eligible for LCS. Retaining the 2021 USPSTF criteria for Whites, the model discovered a new pair of points for Blacks by reducing the minimum age to 43 years and decreasing the cumulative number of cigarettes smoked to 15 pack-years. Based on these cut-off points, we created tailored criteria for Blacks. Under the tailored criteria, Blacks (OR: 1.00; 95 %CI: 0.88-1.14) had the same odds of eligibility for LCS as Whites. The odds of eligibility for LCS by sex under the tailored criteria did not differ significantly for Black men (OR: 1.02; 95 %CI: 0.85-1.24) and Black women (OR: 0.95; 95 %CI: 0.81-1.12) compared to their respective White counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

These tailored criteria for Blacks eliminate the disparities between Blacks and Whites in LCS eligibility. Future studies should test the sensitivity and specificity of these tailored criteria.

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.

Screening behaviors of high-risk individuals for lung cancer: A cross-sectional study

Objective

To investigate current screening behaviors among high-risk individuals and analyse the factors that influence them.

Methods

A cross-sectional of 1652 high-risk individuals were recruited in Fujian Province, China from February to October 2022. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants were collected and other survey measures included a lung cancer and lung cancer screening knowledge questionnaire and a stage of adoption algorithm. Standardized measures on surveys were comprised of the: Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales, Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and the Patient Trust in the Medical Profession Scale. Factors associated with screening behavior were identified using binary logistic regression analysis.

Results

Lung cancer screening behavior stages were largely reported as Stage 1 and Stage 2 (64.4%). The facilitators of lung cancer screening included urban residence (OR = 1.717, 95% CI: 1.224-2.408), holding administrative positions (OR = 16.601, 95% CI: 2.118-130.126), previous lung cancer screening behavior (OR = 10.331, 95% CI: 7.463-14.302), media exposure focused on lung cancer screening (OR = 1.868, 95% CI: 1.344-2.596), a high level of knowledge about lung cancer and lung cancer screening (OR = 1.256, 95% CI: 1.185-1.332), perceived risk of lung cancer (OR = 1.123, 95% CI: 1.029-1.225) and lung cancer screening health beliefs (OR = 1.090, 95% CI: 1.067-1.113). A barrier to lung cancer screening was found to be social influence (influence of friends or family) (OR = 0.669, 95% CI: 0.465-0.964).

Conclusions

This study found a low participation rate in lung cancer screening and identified eight factors that affected lung cancer screening behaviors among high-risk individuals. Findings suggest targeted lung cancer screening programs should be developed based on identified influencing factors in order to effectively promote awareness and uptake of lung cancer screening.

The Gap of Health Inequalities Amongst Lung Cancer Patients of Different Socioeconomic Status: A Brief Reference to the Greek Reality

Lung cancer treatment and patient care are constantly improving, but it remains doubtful whether this applies equally to all socioeconomic groups. It is nowadays well established that there are socioeconomic inequalities regarding lung cancer incidence, screening, effective treatment, overall survival, and prognosis. One of the key contributing factors to low socioeconomic status is low education. Low educational level is correlated with several factors, such as smoking habits, bad lifestyle behaviors, lower paid and unhealthier occupations, polluted neighborhoods, and genetic-familial risk, that lead to increased lung cancer incidence. The disparities regarding lung cancer care are further enhanced by stigma. On this basis and inspired by the gap in health equality among the Greek population, the Greek Society of Lung Cancer initiated a campaign, "MIND THE GAP", to help increase awareness and minimize the gap associated with lung cancer, both in Greece and across Europe. The aim of this review is to explore the gap of health inequalities regarding lung cancer incidence and prognosis between patients of different SES and its root of causality. Key pivotal actions towards bridging this gap are reviewed as well.

Exploration of experiences and attitudes associated with lung health promotion among Black males with a history of smoking

To examine knowledge and attitudes about lung health promotion (smoking cessation and lung cancer screening) among Black male smokers in a large Midwestern city in the United States. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 25 study participants. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. Participants also completed a brief (5-10 minutes) survey measuring demographic characteristics, smoking experiences and knowledge and attitudes about lung health promotion activities. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data, and deductive thematic analysis for qualitative data analysis. The mean age of study participants was 57.5 years. Eighty-four percent of participants were current smokers, with the majority being daily smokers. Perceived risk for lung cancer was mixed, with 56% of participants endorsing that they considered themselves to be at high or moderate risk and the remaining 44% at low or no risk for lung cancer. Forty percent of participants reported having had a test to check their lungs for cancer. Participants were aware of the health risks associated with smoking but reported limited assistance from providers regarding the receipt of smoking cessation treatments. Awareness of lung cancer screening was limited, but participants expressed openness to screening; however, barriers were anticipated, including costs, fear and a reduced willingness to be screened in the absence of symptoms. Study participants reported limited experiences with lung health promotion activities. Knowledge about the facilitators and barriers can be used to develop health promotion interventions targeting smoking cessation and lung cancer screening.

The tobacco quitline setting as a teachable moment: The Educating Quitline Users About Lung (EQUAL) cancer screening randomized trial

Although lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose CT is recommended for high-risk individuals, screening adherence remains low. We conducted a randomized trial to compare two methods of providing LCS education to Maryland Tobacco Quitline (MTQ) callers in order to assess whether this setting may serve as a teachable moment for LCS-eligible individuals. MTQ callers (50-80 years, 20+ pack-years, prior LCS ≥12 months) completed the baseline and were randomized to the Print- or Web-based version of ShouldIScreen.com. Participants completed 1- and 4-month follow-up assessments to evaluate intervention engagement and LCS-related outcomes. Participants (Print = 152, Web = 146) were 61.7 (SD = 6.3) years old and reported 63.5 pack-years (SD = 36.0). Most identified as Black (54.2%), female (66.1%), having internet access (78.9%), completing other recommended cancer screenings (86.3%), and that they would undergo LCS if recommended by their provider (91.3%). By 4 months, significantly more Print (75.0%) than Web (61.6%) participants had read the materials (P = .01). Most reported the interventions contained "the right amount" of information (92.6%) and prepared them to talk with their doctor (57.2%). Regarding screening-related outcomes, 42.8% (Print) and 43.8% (Web) had scheduled or completed a low-dose CT scan or a shared decision-making visit (P = .86). In a racially diverse sample of LCS-eligible quitline callers, offering LCS educational materials resulted in high intervention engagement and screening-related appointments. As >20% did not have internet access, providing participants' preferred modality (web/print) may improve intervention engagement and knowledge. Improving LCS awareness represents an important opportunity to increase screening among eligible but unscreened quitline callers.

Developing a pan-European technical standard for a comprehensive high-quality lung cancer computed tomography screening programme: an ERS technical standard

BACKGROUND

Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography (LDCT) has a strong evidence base. The European Council adopted a recommendation in November 2022 that lung cancer screening (LCS) be implemented using a stepwise approach. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that delivers clinical and cost-effectiveness. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) Task Force was formed to provide a technical standard for a high-quality LCS programme.

METHOD

A collaborative group was convened to include members of multiple European societies. Topics were identified during a scoping review and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. The final document was approved by all members and the ERS Scientific Advisory Committee.

RESULTS

Topics were identified representing key components of a screening programme. The actions on findings from the LDCT were not included as they are addressed by separate international guidelines (nodule management and clinical management of lung cancer) and by a linked ERS Task Force (incidental findings). Other than smoking cessation, other interventions that are not part of the core screening process were not included (e.g. pulmonary function measurement). 56 statements were produced and areas for further research identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This European collaborative group has produced a technical standard that is a timely contribution to implementation of LCS. It will serve as a standard that can be used, as recommended by the European Council, to ensure a high-quality and effective programme.

Preferences for Decision Control among a High-Risk Cohort Offered Lung Cancer Screening: A Brief Report of Secondary Analyses from the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT)

Background. Personal autonomy in lung cancer screening is advocated internationally, but health systems diverge in their approach, mandating either shared decision making (with a health care professional) or individual decision making. Studies of other cancer screening programs have found that individual preferences for the level of involvement in screening decisions vary across different sociodemographic groups and that aligning approaches with individual preferences has the potential to improve uptake. Method. For the first time, we examined preferences for decision control among a cohort of UK-based high-risk lung cancer screening candidates ( N = 727). We used descriptive statistics to report the distribution of preferences and chi-square tests to examine associations between decision preferences and sociodemographic variables. Results. Most (69.7%) preferred to be involved in the decision with varying degrees of input from a health care professional. Few (10.2%) wanted to make the decision alone. Preferences were also associated with educational attainment. Conclusion. These findings suggest one-size-fits-all approaches may be inadequate in meeting diverse preferences, particularly those placing sole onus on the individual.

Highlights

Preferences for involvement in decision making about lung cancer screening are heterogeneous among high-risk individuals in the United Kingdom and vary by educational attainment. Further work is needed to understand how policy makers might implement hybrid approaches to accommodate individual preferences and optimize lung cancer screening program outcomes.

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.

Health Care Disparities in Radiology-A Review of the Current Literature

INTRODUCTION

Health care disparities exist in all medical specialties, including radiology. Raising awareness of established health care disparities is a critical component of radiology's efforts to mitigate disparities. Our primary objective is to perform a comprehensive review of the last 10 years of literature pertaining to disparities in radiology care. Our secondary objective is to raise awareness of disparities in radiology.

METHODS

We reviewed English-language medicine and health services literature from the past 10 years (2010-2020) for research that described disparities in any aspect of radiologic imaging using radiology search terms and key words for disparities in OVID. Relevant studies were identified with adherence to the guidelines set forth by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

RESULTS

The search yielded a total 1,890 articles. We reviewed the citations and abstracts with the initial search yielding 1,890 articles (without duplicates). Of these, 1,776 were excluded based on the criteria set forth in the methods. The remaining unique 114 articles were included for qualitative synthesis.

DISCUSSION

We hope this article increases awareness and inspires action to address disparities and encourages research that further investigates previously identified disparities and explores not-yet-identified disparities.

Lung Cancer Screening in a Surgical Lung Cancer Population: Analysis of a Rural, Quaternary, Academic Experience

BACKGROUND

Rural populations face many health disadvantages including higher rates of tobacco use and lung cancer than more populated areas. Given this, we specifically sought to understand the current screening landscape in a cohort of patients with resected lung cancer to help direct improvements in the screening process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our prospective database at a rural, quaternary, academic institution from January 2015 to June 2018. All patients who underwent resection for primary lung cancer were studied to assess the frequency of preoperative low-dose chest computed tomography per accepted guidelines. The intent was to evaluate participant demographics, clinical stage, frequency, and distribution of Lung-RADS reporting.

RESULTS

About 446 patients underwent primary resection, of which 252 were deemed screening-eligible. About 57 (22.6%) underwent low-dose chest computed tomography screening and 195 (77.4%) did not. No significant demographic differences were identified between groups. However, 82.5% (47/57) of the screened patients presented with clinical stage IA disease, compared with 67.1% (131/195) of the nonscreened patients (P = 0.03). Among those screened, 36.8% (21/57) did not have a Lung-RADS score documented despite 52.3% (11/21) of those coming from accredited programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our screening completion rate was only 22.6% of eligible patients and 36.8% of those patients did not have a documented Lung-RADS score. These findings, in combination with the increased rate of diagnosis of stage IA disease, provide compelling reasons to further investigate factors designed to improve access and screening practices at rural institutions.

The impact of income and education on lung cancer screening utilization, eligibility, and outcomes: a narrative review of socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the US and worldwide. In particular, vulnerable populations such as those of low socioeconomic status (SES) are at the highest risk for and suffer the highest mortality from NSCLC. Although lung cancer screening (LCS) has been demonstrated to be a powerful tool to lower NSCLC mortality, it is underutilized by eligible smokers, and disparities in screening are likely to contribute to inequities in NSCLC outcomes. It is imperative that we collect and analyze LCS data focused on individuals of low socioeconomic position to identify and address barriers to LCS utilization and help close the gaps in NSCLC mortality along socioeconomic lines. Toward this end, this review aims to examine published studies that have evaluated the impact of income and education on LCS utilization, eligibility, and outcomes. We searched the PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and CINAHL Plus databases for all studies published from January 1, 2010, to October 21, 2020, that discussed socioeconomic-based LCS outcomes. The review reveals that income and education have impact on LCS utilization, eligibility, false positive rates and smoking cessation attempts; however, there is a lack of studies evaluating the impact of SES on LCS follow-up, stage at diagnosis, and treatment. We recommend the intentional inclusion of lower SES participants in LCS studies in order to clarify appropriate eligibility criteria, risk-based metrics and outcomes in this high-risk group. We also anticipate that low SES smokers and their providers will require increased support and education regarding smoking cessation and shared decision-making efforts.