Understanding patient barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung screening using low dose computed tomography: a mixed methods scoping review of the current literature

Lung Cancer Screening in the US, 2022

Importance

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography in high-risk individuals (age 50-80 years, ≥20 pack-years currently smoking or formerly smoked, and quit <15 years ago) for early detection of LC. However, representative state-level LCS data are unavailable nationwide.

Objective

To estimate the contemporary prevalence of up-to-date (UTD) LCS in the US nationwide and across the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used data from the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) population-based, nationwide, state-representative survey for respondents aged 50 to 79 years who were eligible for LCS according to the 2021 USPSTF eligibility criteria. Data analysis was performed from October 1, 2023, to March 20, 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was self-reported UTD-LCS (defined as past-year) prevalence according to the 2021 USPSTF eligibility criteria in respondents aged 50 to 79 years. Adjusted prevalence ratios (APRs) and 95% CIs compared differences.

Results

Among 25 958 sample respondents eligible for LCS (median [IQR] age, 62 [11] years), 61.5% reported currently smoking, 54.4% were male, 64.4% were aged 60 years or older, and 53.0% had a high school education or less. The UTD-LCS prevalence was 18.1% overall, but varied across states (range, 9.7%-31.0%), with relatively lower levels in southern states characterized by high LC mortality burden. The UTD-LCS prevalence increased with age (50-54 years: 6.7%; 70-79 years: 27.1%) and number of comorbidities (≥3: 24.6%; none: 8.7%). A total of 3.7% of those without insurance and 5.1% of those without a usual source of care were UTD with LCS, but state-level Medicaid expansions (APR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.30-5.53) and higher screening capacity levels (high vs low: APR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.36-2.75) were associated with higher UTD-LCS prevalence.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study of data from the 2022 BRFSS found that the overall prevalence of UTD-LCS was low. Disparities were largest according to health care access and geographically across US states, with low prevalence in southern states with high LC burden. The findings suggest that state-based initiatives to expand access to health care and screening facilities may be associated with improved LCS rates and reduced disparities.

Patient Lung Cancer Screening Decisions and Environmental and Psychosocial Factors

Importance

Screening for lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography is associated with reduced lung cancer-specific mortality, but uptake is low in the US; understanding how patients make decisions to engage with lung cancer screening is critical for increasing uptake. Prior research has focused on individual-level psychosocial factors, but environmental factors (eg, historical contexts that include experiencing racism) and modifying factors-those that can be changed to make it easier or harder to undergo screening-also likely affect screening decisions.

Objective

To investigate environmental, psychosocial, and modifying factors influencing lung cancer screening decision-making and develop a conceptual framework depicting relationships between these factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multimethod qualitative study was conducted from December 2021 to June 2022 using virtual semistructured interviews and 4 focus groups (3-4 participants per group). All participants met US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening (ie, age 50-80 years, at least a 20 pack-year smoking history, and either currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years). Screening-eligible US participants were recruited using an online panel.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Key factors influencing screening decisions (eg, knowledge, beliefs, barriers, and facilitators) were the main outcome. A theory-informed, iterative inductive-deductive approach was applied to analyze data and develop a conceptual framework summarizing results.

Results

Among 34 total participants (interviews, 20 [59%]; focus groups, 14 [41%]), mean (SD) age was 59.1 (4.8) years and 20 (59%) identified as female. Half had a household income below $20 000 (17 [50%]). Participants emphasized historical and present-day racism as critical factors contributing to mistrust of health care practitioners and avoidance of medical procedures like screening. Participants reported that other factors, such as public transportation availability, also influenced decisions. Additionally, participants described psychosocial processes involved in decisions, such as perceived screening benefits, lung cancer risk appraisal, and fear of a cancer diagnosis or harmful encounters with practitioners. In addition, participants identified modifying factors (eg, insurance coverage) that could make receiving screening easier or harder.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this qualitative study of patient lung cancer screening decisions, environmental, psychosocial, and modifying factors influenced screening decisions. The findings suggest that systems-level interventions, such as those that help practitioners understand and discuss patients' prior negative health care experiences, are needed to promote effective screening decision-making.

Digital Interventions to Support Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Use of General Health Examination and Cancer Screening among People with Disability Who Need Support from Others: Analysis of the 2016 Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions in Japan

Research on preventive healthcare services among people with disability in Japan is scarce. This study aimed to (1) examine the relationship between disability and the use of general health examination (GHE) and cancer screening (lung, gastric, colorectal, breast and cervical cancer) and (2) explore the reasons for not using GHE. This cross-sectional study used secondary data from individuals aged 20-74 years (n = 15,294) from the Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions of 2016. Binomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between disability and non-participation in preventive services. In addition, a descriptive analysis was conducted to explore the reasons for non-participation in GHE. Consequently, disability was identified as an independently associated factor for non-participation in GHE (odds ratios (OR): 1.73; 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1.14-2.62) and screening for colorectal (OR: 1.78; 95%CI: 1.08-2.94), gastric (OR: 2.27; 95%CI: 1.27-4.05), cervical (OR: 2.12; 95%CI: 1.04-4.32) and breast cancer (OR: 2.22; 95%CI: 1.04-4.72), controlling for confounding factors. The most dominant reason for non-participation was "I can go to see the doctor anytime, if I am worried (25/54, 46.3%)." Our findings imply the existence of disability-based disparity in preventive healthcare service use in Japan.

Why is the screening rate in lung cancer still low? A seven-country analysis of the factors affecting adoption

Strong evidence of lung cancer screening's effectiveness in mortality reduction, as demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the US and the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON), has prompted countries to implement formal lung cancer screening programs. However, adoption rates remain largely low. This study aims to understand how lung cancer screening programs are currently performing. It also identifies the barriers and enablers contributing to adoption of lung cancer screening across 10 case study countries: Canada, China, Croatia, Japan, Poland, South Korea and the United States. Adoption rates vary significantly across studied countries. We find five main factors impacting adoption: (1) political prioritization of lung cancer (2) financial incentives/cost sharing and hidden ancillary costs (3) infrastructure to support provision of screening services (4) awareness around lung cancer screening and risk factors and (5) cultural views and stigma around lung cancer. Although these factors have application across the countries, the weighting of each factor on driving or hindering adoption varies by country. The five areas set out by this research should be factored into policy making and implementation to maximize effectiveness and outreach of lung cancer screening programs.

Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening Access from the Perspective of the Patient and Current Interventions

In the context of the Conceptual Model for Lung Cancer Screening Participation, this article describes patient barriers to lung cancer screening highlighting current interventions. Patient barriers include cognitive factors (lack of awareness, limited information/misinformation, and low perceived risk), factors related to access (logistical issues, no provider recommendation, cost, and other financial/social factors), and psychological factors (fear, fatalism, lung cancer worry, and stigma). Current interventions include the use of educational materials/presentations to address cognitive barriers, use of direct outreach and structural change to address factors related to access, and use of educational material focused on psychological barriers to address psychological barriers.

Disparities Contributing to Late-Stage Diagnosis of Lung, Colorectal, Breast, and Cervical Cancers: Rural and Urban Poverty in Florida

Despite advances in cancer screening, late-stage cancer diagnosis is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. In this study, we aim to understand demographic and geographic factors associated with receiving a late-stage diagnosis (LSD) of lung, colorectal, breast, or cervical cancer. (1) Methods: We analyzed data of patients with a cancer diagnosis between 2016 and 2020 from the Florida Cancer Data System (FCDS), a statewide population-based registry. To investigate correlates of LSD, we estimated multi-variable logistic regression models for each cancer while controlling for age, sex, race, insurance, and census tract rurality and poverty. (2) Results: Patients from high-poverty rural areas had higher odds for LSD of lung (OR = 1.23, 95% CI (1.10, 1.37)) and breast cancer (OR = 1.31, 95% CI (1.17,1.47)) than patients from low-poverty urban areas. Patients in high-poverty urban areas saw higher odds of LSD for lung (OR = 1.05 95% CI (1.00, 1.09)), breast (OR = 1.10, 95% CI (1.06, 1.14)), and cervical cancer (OR = 1.19, 95% CI (1.03, 1.37)). (3) Conclusions: Financial barriers contributing to decreased access to care likely drive LSD for cancer in rural and urban communities of Florida.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography screening on lung cancer incidence and outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review findings from clinical trials of lung cancer screening (LCS), assess contemporary issues with implementation in clinical practice, and review emerging strategies to increase the uptake and efficiency of LCS.

RECENT FINDINGS

In 2013, the USPSTF recommended annual screening for individuals aged 55-80 years and currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years based on reduced mortality from lung cancer with annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. Subsequent trials have demonstrated similar mortality outcomes in individuals with lower pack-year smoking histories. These findings, coupled with evidence for disparities in screening eligibility by race, resulted in updated guidelines by USPSTF to broaden eligibility criteria for screening. Despite this body of evidence, implementation in the United States has been suboptimal with fewer than 20% of eligible individuals receiving a screen. Barriers to efficient implementation are multifactorial and include patient, clinician, and system-level factors.

SUMMARY

Multiple randomized trials have established that annual LCS reduces mortality from lung cancer; however, several areas of uncertainty exist on the effectiveness of annual LDCT. Ongoing research is examining approaches to improve the uptake and efficiency of LCS, such as the use of risk-prediction models and biomarkers for identification of high-risk individuals.

ERS International Congress 2022: highlights from the Thoracic Oncology Assembly

Thoracic malignancies are associated with a substantial public health burden. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with significant impact on patients' quality of life. Following 2 years of virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) Congresses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 hybrid ERS Congress in Barcelona, Spain allowed peers from all over the world to meet again and present their work. Thoracic oncology experts presented best practices and latest developments in lung cancer screening, lung cancer diagnosis and management. Early lung cancer diagnosis, subsequent pros and cons of aggressive management, identification and management of systemic treatments' side-effects, and the application of artificial intelligence and biomarkers across all aspects of the thoracic oncology pathway were among the areas that triggered specific interest and will be summarised here.

[Results of a single center vascular screening program in Germany]

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular diseases are the main cause of death in Europe with a relevant socioeconomic burden. A screening program for vascular diseases in asymptomatic persons with a defined risk constellation can lead to an early diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

The study examined a screening program for carotid stenosis, peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) in persons without any known vascular disease with respect to demographic data, risk factors, pre-existing conditions, medication intake, detection of pathological findings and/or findings requiring treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Test subjects were invited using various information material and filled in a questionnaire on cardiovascular risk factors. The screening took place with measurement of the ABI and duplex sonography as a monocentric prospective single arm study within 1 year. Endpoints were the prevalence of risk factors and pathological and/or results requiring treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 391 persons participated, 36% presented with at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor, 35.5% with 2 and 14.4% with 3 or more. The sonography showed results requiring control with a carotid stenosis of < 50-> 75% or occlusion in 9%. An AAA with a diameter of 3.0-4.5 cm was diagnosed in 0.9% and a pathological ABI < 0.9 or > 1.3 in 12.3%. The indications for a pharmacotherapy were found in 17% and no operation was recommended.

CONCLUSION

The practicability of a screening program for carotid stenosis, PAOD and AAA of a defined risk population was shown. Vascular pathologies that required treatment were hardly found in the catchment area of the hospital. Consequently, the implementation of this screening program in Germany based on the collected data cannot currently be recommended in this form.