Lung Cancer Screening Participation: Developing a Conceptual Model to Guide Research

Racism, discrimination, medical mistrust, stigma, and lung cancer screening: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Lung cancer screening can reduce lung cancer-specific mortality, but it is widely underutilized, especially among minoritized populations that bear a disproportionate burden of lung cancer, such as Black Americans. Racism, discrimination, medical mistrust, and stigma contribute to lower uptake of preventive screenings in general, but the role these factors play in lung cancer screening is unclear. We therefore conducted a scoping review to synthesize the literature regarding how racism, discrimination, medical mistrust, and stigma relate to lung cancer screening.

DESIGN

Informed by PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched five databases for relevant literature, and two trained researchers independently reviewed articles for relevance. We conducted a narrative, descriptive analysis of included articles.

RESULTS

A total of 45 studies met our inclusion criteria. Most articles reported on medical mistrust or one of its cognates (e.g. trust and distrust, n = 37) and/or stigma (n = 25), with several articles focusing on multiple constructs. Few articles reported on racism (n = 3), and n = 1 article reported on discrimination. Results from empirical studies suggest that medical mistrust, distrust, and stigma may be barriers to lung cancer screening, whereas trust in health care providers may facilitate screening. The articles reporting on racism were commentaries calling attention to the impact of racism on lung cancer screening in Black populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, novel interventions are needed to promote trust and reduce mistrust, distrust, and stigma in lung cancer screening initiatives. Dedicated efforts are especially needed to understand and address the roles that racism and discrimination may play in lung cancer screening.

Predictors of Up-To-Date Lung Cancer Screening Among Eligible People in the United States: A Nationally Representative Dataset

This study examines the factors associated with up-to-date lung cancer screening (UTD-LCS) among eligible adults. We analyzed survey data from the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and selected participants eligible for LCS. Logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between UTD-LCS and various factors, including demographics, mental and physical health, and access to healthcare. Among the respondents (Weighted N = 13,037,747), 8.18% were eligible for LCS. However, only 24.53% of those eligible had undergone screening in the past year. Individuals who self-identified as Asian (OR = 0.77, P = .008), American Indian (OR = 0.78, P = .002), and Hispanic (OR = 0.79, P = .006) were significantly less likely to participate in LCS screening. In contrast, married individuals (OR = 1.07, P = .019) and older adults aged 70 to 80 years (OR = 1.78, P < .001) were more likely to have undergone screening. Additionally, a poor physical health status was associated with UTD-LCS, as having more days of poor health increased the odds of screening (for 14 days or more: OR = 1.28, P < .001). Finally, having insurance (private plan: OR = 3.7, P < .001) and not experiencing medical cost issues (OR = 1.13, P = .025) were also associated with greater odds of being up-to-date on lung cancer screening. Our results underscore the need for targeted public health interventions that increase awareness and accessibility of LCS. The study also emphasizes the critical role of primary care providers in promoting screening.

Disparities in lung cancer screening utilization at two health systems in the Southeastern USA

PURPOSE

Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening is effective for reducing lung cancer mortality. It is critical to understand the lung cancer screening practices for screen-eligible individuals living in Alabama and Georgia where lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. High lung cancer incidence and mortality rates are attributed to high smoking rates among underserved, low income, and rural populations. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to define sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients who were screened for lung cancer at an Academic Medical Center (AMC) in Alabama and a Safety Net Hospital (SNH) in Georgia.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of screen-eligible patients was constructed using electronic health records between 2015 and 2020 seen at an Academic Medical Center (AMC) and a Safety Net Hospital (SNH) separately. Chi-square tests and Student t tests were used to compare screening uptake across patient demographic and clinical variables. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions determined significant predictors of lung cancer screening uptake.

RESULTS

At the AMC, 67,355 were identified as eligible for LCS and 1,129 were screened. In bivariate analyses, there were several differences between those who were screened and those who were not screened. Screening status in the site at Alabama-those with active tobacco use are significantly more likely to be screened than former smokers (OR: 3.208, p < 0.01). For every 10-unit increase in distance, the odds of screening decreased by about 15% (OR: 0.848, p < 0.01). For every 10-year increase in age, the odds of screening decrease by about 30% (OR: 0.704, p < 0.01). Each additional comorbidity increases the odds of screening by about 7.5% (OR: 1.075, p < 0.01). Those with both private and public insurance have much higher odds of screening compared to those with only private insurance (OR: 5.403, p < 0.01). However, those with only public insurance have lower odds of screening compared to those with private insurance (OR: 0.393, p < 0.01). At the SNH-each additional comorbidity increased the odds of screening by about 11.9% (OR: 1.119, p = 0.01). Notably, those with public insurance have significantly higher odds of being screened compared to those with private insurance (OR: 2.566, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The study provides evidence that LCS has not reached all subgroups and that additional targeted efforts are needed to increase lung cancer screening uptake. Furthermore, disparity was noticed between adults living closer to screening institutions and those who lived farther.

A community-based approach to address lung cancer screening disparities in the black community using the Witness Project® framework: development and pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Disparities in lung cancer outcomes persist among Black Americans, necessitating targeted interventions to address screening inequities. This paper reports the development and refinement of Witness Project® Lung, a community-based initiative tailored to the specific needs of the Black community, aiming to improve awareness and engagement with lung cancer screening.

METHODS

Utilizing a user-centered design and guided by the original Witness Project® framework - an evidence-based lay health advisor intervention program originally developed to increase knowledge and awareness about breast cancer risk and screening in the Black community and later trans-created to the cervical and colorectal cancer screening contexts - Witness Project® Lung was developed and refined through qualitative input from key stakeholders in the Black faith community. Guided by the PEN-3 model and the Conceptual Model for Lung Cancer Screening Participation, the program underwent a rigorous development process to ensure cultural relevance and was pilot tested in the New York City metropolitan area in faith-based and community-based organizational sites in the Black community.

RESULTS

Pilot testing conducted in New York and New Jersey demonstrated high acceptability, satisfaction, and increased knowledge among participants. The community-based approach, culturally sensitive messaging, and partnerships with faith-based organizations were critical to the refinements of Witness Project® to Witness Project® Lung. The program's focus on addressing social determinants of health and its delivery by trained lay health advisors showcased feasibility and potential effectiveness. Witness Project® Lung presents a promising alternative to traditional health system-based interventions for improving lung screening rates among Black Americans.

CONCLUSIONS

The community-based, culturally tailored approach, coupled with the involvement of trusted community leaders, has the potential to reduce disparities in lung cancer outcomes. Further research is needed to assess the long-term impact and cost-effectiveness of Witness Project® Lung in promoting lung screening uptake and improving health outcomes within underserved populations.

Patient-Provider Lung Cancer Screening Discussions: An Analysis of a National Survey

BACKGROUND

The US Preventative Service Task Force (USPSTF) updated lung cancer screening (LCS) recommendations with annual low-dose CT (LDCT) in 2021. We aimed to assess prevalence of patient-provider discussion about LCS and determine its associated factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using data from Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 2022 cycle 6, 2 cohorts were evaluated: (1) potentially LCS-eligible, included participants at least 50 years old with a history of smoking and no prior history of lung cancer; (2) LCS-ineligible individuals based on age (eg, 18-49 years old), smoking history (eg, never smoked), or history of lung cancer. We assessed association of demographic, clinical, and social factors with LDCT discussion in a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Among potentially LCS-eligible patients, 19% had never heard of LDCT and only 9.4% had discussed LCS with their provider within the past year. Those who accessed online patient portals were more likely to discuss LCS with their healthcare provider (OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 1.67, 10.81; P, .003), as were respondents with a history of current (vs. former) smoking (OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.21, 8.19; P, .019). Among LCS-ineligible, 1.9% discussed LCS with their providers. Individuals with a personal history of cancer (OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 1.65, 27.19; P, .009), and those who discussed colorectal cancer screening (OR, 5.74; 95% CI, 1.63, 20.14; P, .007) were more likely to discuss LCS with their provider.

CONCLUSION

Despite updated USPSTF recommendations, rates of patient-provider LCS remains low. Multi-level interventions to address barriers to LCS are needed.

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.

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.

Unpacking the relationship between shared decision-making and decisional quality, decision to screen, and screening completion in lung cancer screening

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer screening is a complex and individualized decision. To understand how best to support patients in this decision, we must understand how shared decision-making is associated with both decisional and behavioral outcomes.

METHODS

Observational cohort study combining patient survey data with electronic health record data of lung screening-eligible patients who recently engaged in a shared decision-making discussion about screening with a primary care clinician.

RESULTS

Using multivariable analysis (n = 529), factors associated with higher lung cancer screening decisional quality include higher knowledge (OR = 1.33, p < .0001), lower perceived benefits (OR = 0.90, p = .0004), higher perceived barriers (OR = 1.07, p < .0001), higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.13, p < .0001), and higher levels of perceiving the discussion was shared (OR = 1.04, p < .0001). Factors associated with the patient's decision to screen include older age (OR = 1.12, p = .0050) and higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.11, p = .0407). Factors associated with screening completion included older age (OR = 1.05, p = .0050), higher knowledge (OR = 1.24, p = .0045), and higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.12, p = .0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Shared decision-making in lung cancer screening is a dyadic process between patient and clinician. As we continue to strive for high-quality patient-centered care, patient decision quality may be enhanced by targeting key factors such as high-quality knowledge, self-efficacy, and fostering a shared discussion to support patient engagement in lung cancer screening decisions.

Promoting Lung Cancer Screen Decision-Making and Early Detection Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Promoting lung cancer screening (LCS) is complex. Previous studies have overlooked that LCS behaviors are stage based and thus did not identify the characteristics of LCS interventions at different screening stages.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to explore the characteristics and efficacy of interventions in promoting LCS decision making and behaviors and to evaluate these interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a study search from the inception of each bibliographic database to April 8, 2023. The precaution adoption process model was used to synthesize and classify the evidence. The RE-AIM framework was used to evaluate the effectiveness of LCS programs. Heterogeneity tests and meta-analysis were performed using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

We included 31 studies that covered 4 LCS topics: knowledge of lung cancer, knowledge of LCS, value clarification exercises, and LCS supportive resources. Patient decision aids outperformed educational materials in improving knowledge and decision outcomes with a significant reduction in decision conflict (standardized mean difference, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, -1.15 to -0.47; P < .001). Completion rates of LCS ranged from 3.6% to 98.8%. Interventions that included screening resources outperformed interventions that used patient decision aids alone in improving LCS completion. The proportions of reported RE-AIM indicators were highest for reach (69.59%), followed by adoption (43.87%), effectiveness (36.13%), implementation (33.33%), and maintenance (9.68%).

CONCLUSION

Evidence from 31 studies identified intervention characteristics and effectiveness of LCS interventions based on different stages of decision making.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

It is crucial to develop targeted and systematic interventions based on the characteristics of each stage of LCS to maximize intervention effectiveness and reduce the burden of lung cancer.

"They Need to Feel Non-Judgmental": Results of Participatory Photovoice Research to Inform Lung Cancer Screening Imagery

INTRODUCTION

Effective communication and messaging strategies are crucial to raise awareness and support participants' efforts to adhere to lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines. Health messages that incorporate images are processed more efficiently, and given the stigma surrounding lung cancer and cigarette smoking, emphasis must be placed on selecting imagery that is engaging to LCS-eligible individuals. This exploratory study aimed to identify person-centered themes surrounding LCS imagery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This qualitative study leveraged a modified photovoice approach and interviews to define descriptive themes about LCS imagery. Study participants eligible for annual LCS who had a CT scan within 12 months were asked to select three images and participate in a semi-structured interview about photo selection, likes, and dislikes. Participants were also asked their opinions about images from current LCS communications featuring matches, smoke, and cigarettes. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

Data saturation was reached after thirteen individuals completed the photovoice activity; each participant selected three pictures resulting in a total of 39 images representing LCS. Over half (54%) of images selected contained lungs and only 4 (10%) contained smoking-related elements. Five main themes emerged: 1) images should focus on good news and early detection; 2) people should be relatable; 3) pictures with lungs can dually support lung health or invoke fear; 4) opportunity for education or awareness; and 5) should not be judgmental and induce stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that LCS imagery should not contain negative or stigmatizing elements but instead be relatable and educational. This information can inform communication and messaging interventions and strategies for future LCS participation, awareness, and educational research.

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.

Effective Communication About Lung Cancer Screening Without Iatrogenic Stigma: A Brief Report Case Study Using the Lung Cancer Stigma Communications Assessment Tool of LungTalk

Introduction

Stigma thwarts progress in lung cancer risk reduction and control and adversely affects patients across the entire lung cancer care continuum. In developing and disseminating patient and public-facing interventions to increase lung screening, we must be cognizant of how communications have the potential for further stigmatization of at-risk populations. Creation of the Lung Cancer Stigma Communications Assessment Tool (LCS-CAT) version 1 was supported by the American Cancer Society's National Lung Cancer Roundtable to help content developers identify, remove, and replace potentially stigmatizing language and imagery from materials designed to engage individuals across the lung cancer continuum.

Methods

The LCS-CAT considers language, imagery, and context and was used to audit a public-facing health communication and decision support tool called LungTalk.

Results

The audit performed by two behavioral scientists revealed multiple issues in all three areas, and specific feedback and alternatives were identified.

Conclusions

Applying the LCS-CAT to LungTalk was a productive process that helped remove potentially stigmatizing language and imagery from this tool designed to engage individuals in the process of making an informed decision about lung screening. To support destigmatization of lung cancer, communication creators should consider a stigma biopsy on all public-facing campaigns for lung screening to help identify, eliminate, and replace messages that could compromise engagement with the lung cancer screening opportunity.

Factors associated with lung cancer risk factor documentation

Objectives

To identify factors associated with the minimum necessary information to determine an individual’s eligibility for lung cancer screening (ie, sufficient risk factor documentation) and to characterize clinic-level variability in documentation.

Study Design

Cross-sectional observational study using electronic health record data from an academic health system in 2019.

Methods

We calculated the relative risk of sufficient lung cancer risk factor documentation by patient-, provider-, and system-level variables using Poisson regression models, clustering by clinic. We compared unadjusted, risk-adjusted, and reliability-adjusted proportions of patients with sufficient smoking documentation across 31 clinics using logistic regression models and 2-level hierarchical logit models to estimate reliability-adjusted proportions across clinics.

Results

Among 20,632 individuals, 60% had sufficient risk factor documentation to determine screening eligibility. Patient-level factors inversely associated with risk factor documentation included Black race (relative risk [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81), non-English preferred language (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.74), Medicaid insurance (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.71), and nonactivated patient portal (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.90). Documentation varied across clinics. The reliability-adjusted intraclass correlation coefficient decreased from 11.0% (95% CI, 6.9%-17.1%) to 5.3% (95% CI, 3.2%-8.6%), adjusting for covariates.

Conclusions

We found a low rate of sufficient lung cancer risk factor documentation and associations of risk factor documentation based on patient-level factors such as race, insurance status, language, and patient portal activation. Risk factor documentation rates varied across clinics, and only approximately half the variation was explained by factors in our analysis.

Using Community Health Advisors to Increase Lung Cancer Screening Awareness in the Black Belt: a Pilot Study

Disease stage at the time of diagnosis is the most important determinant of prognosis for lung cancer. Despite demonstrated effectiveness of lung cancer screening (LCS) in reducing lung cancer mortality, early detection continues to elude populations with the highest risk for lung cancer death. Consistent with the national rate, current screening rate in Alabama is dismal at 4.2%. While public awareness of LCS may be a likely cause, there are no studies that have thoroughly evaluated current knowledge of LCS within the Deep South. Therefore, we measured LCS knowledge before and after receiving education delivered by community health advisors (CHAs) among high-risk individuals living in medically underserved communities of Alabama and to determine impact of psychological, demographic, health status, and cognitive factors on rate of lung cancer screening participation. Participants were recruited from one urban county and six rural Black Belt counties (characterized by poverty, rurality, unemployment, low educational attainment, and disproportionate lack of access to health services). One hundred individuals (i) aged between 55 and 80 years; (ii) currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years; and (iii) have at least a total of 30-pack-year smoking history were recruited. Knowledge scores to assess lung cancer knowledge were calculated. Paired t-test was used to assess pre- and post-knowledge score improvement. Screening for lung cancer was modeled as a function of predisposed factors (age, gender, insurance, education, fatalism, smoking status, and history of family lung cancer). Average age was 62.94 (SD = 6.28), mostly female (54%); mostly current smokers (53%). Most participants (80.85%) reported no family history of cancer. Fatalism was low, with a majority of the participants disagreeing that a cancer diagnosis is pre-destined (67.7%) and that there are no treatments for lung cancer (88.66%). Overall, lung cancer knowledge increased significantly from baseline of 4.64 (SD = 2.37) to 7.61 (SD = 2.26). Of the 100 participants, 23 underwent screening due to lack of access to primary care providers and reluctance of PCPs to provide referral to LCS. Sixty-five percent of those who were screened reported no family history of lung cancer. Regression analysis revealed no significant association between risk factors and the decision to get screened by participants. Our study demonstrates that while CHA delivered education initiatives increases lung cancer screening knowledge, there are significant structural barriers that prohibit effective utilization of LCS which needs to be addressed.

Leveraging social media to increase lung cancer screening awareness, knowledge and uptake among high-risk populations (The INSPIRE-Lung Study): study protocol of design and methods of a community-based randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals, but uptake of lung screening remains low. Social media platforms have the potential to reach a large number of people, including those who are at high risk for lung cancer but who may not be aware of or have access to lung screening.

METHODS

This paper discusses the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that leverages FBTA to reach screening-eligible individuals in the community at large and intervene with a public-facing, tailored health communication intervention (LungTalk) to increase awareness of, and knowledge about, lung screening.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide important information to inform the ability to refine implementation processes for national population efforts to scale a public-facing health communication focused intervention using social media to increase screening uptake of appropriate, high-risk individuals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05824273).

Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scale

The purpose of this study was to verify the validity and reliability of the LCSHBS-K. This was a methodological study. The participants were adults aged between 50 and 74 years old, according to the selection criteria for lung cancer screening presented by the Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines in oncology recommendations. This study included 204 high-risk individuals who had not been diagnosed with lung cancer. The collected data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics software 26.0 version (IBM, New York, NY, USA). The reliability was analyzed by Cronbach's α for internal consistency, and the concurrent validity was analyzed by Pearson's correlation coefficients to identify the correlations with the health belief scale for Korean adults. To test the convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) were calculated using confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, the model fit for a tool was CMIN (χ²/df), SRMR, RMSEA, GFI, and CFI as a comparative fit index. The discriminant validity was tested based on AVE > r². The average age of the participants was 55.49 (SD = 5.07), the average smoking history was 29.55 (SD = 8.12) years, and the average number of cigarettes smoked per day was 12.18 (SD = 7.77). The goodness of fit met the criteria with GFI = 0.81 (criteria > 0.9), CMIN = 1.69 (criteria < 2), SRMR = 0.06 (criteria < 0.08), RMSEA = 0.058 (criteria < 0.06), and CFI = 0.91 (criteria > 0.9). The LCSHBS-K showed a statistically significant positive correlation with the HBS (r = 0.32 (p < 0.001)). Cronbach's α was 0.80 for all the items in the LCSHBS-K. Therefore, the validity and reliability of the LCSHBS-K tool were confirmed. Based on the results of this study, the Korean version of the LCSHBS tool was found to be suitable for screening lung cancer in high-risk groups in Korea.

Leveraging social media to increase lung cancer screening awareness, knowledge and uptake among high-risk populations (The INSPIRE-Lung Study): Study protocol of design and methods of a community-based randomized controlled trial

Background. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals, but uptake of lung screening remains low. Social media platforms have the potential to reach a large number of people, including those who are at high risk for lung cancer but who may not be aware of or have access to lung screening. Methods. This paper discusses the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that leverages FBTA to reach screening-eligible individuals in the community at large and intervene with a public-facing, tailored health communication intervention ( LungTalk ) to increase awareness of, and knowledge about, lung screening. Discussion. This study will provide important information to inform the ability to refine implementation processes for national population efforts to scale a public-facing health communication focused intervention using social media to increase screening uptake of appropriate, high-risk individuals. Trial Registration : The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05824273).

Protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the Enhanced Smoking Cessation Approach to Promote Empowerment (ESCAPE) digitalized intervention to promote lung health in high-risk individuals who smoke

Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) is an effective screening test to decrease lung cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening may be a teachable moment helping people who smoke to quit, which may result in increased benefit of screening. Innovative strategies are needed to engage high-risk individuals in learning about LDCT screening. More precise methods such as polygenic risk scores quantify genetic predisposition to tobacco use, and optimize lung health interventions. We present the ESCAPE (Enhanced Smoking Cessation Approach to Promote Empowerment) protocol. This study will test a smoking cessation intervention using personal stories and a lung cancer screening decision-aide compared to standard care (brief advice, referral to a quit line, and a lung cancer screening decision-aide), examine the relationship between a polygenic risk score and smoking abstinence, and describe perceptions about integration of genomic information into smoking cessation treatment. A randomized controlled trial followed by a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach will compare the efficacy of the interventions. Interviews will add insight into the use of genomic information and risk perceptions to tailor smoking cessation treatment. Two-hundred and fifty individuals will be recruited from primary care, community-based organizations, mailing lists and through social media. Data will be collected at baseline, 1, 3 and 6-months. The primary outcomes are 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence and stage of lung cancer screening at 6-months. The results from this study will provide information to refine the ESCAPE intervention and facilitate integration of precision health into future lung health interventions. Clinical trial registration number: NCT0469129T.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Spanish version of the lung cancer screening health belief scale

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe the translation and psychometric testing of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scale (LCSHBS) into Spanish.

METHODS

The English version of the LCSHBS was professionally translated in accordance with best practices in the translation of patient-reported outcome tools. The independent certified professional translator completed a forward translation of the LCSHBS from English to Spanish, followed by a review of the translated questionnaire by a certified Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Spanish-English bicultural expert, who reviewed the scale for accuracy.

RESULTS

Initial testing of the scales is valid and reliable, and supports the Spanish version of the LCSHBS (LCSHBS-S). Internal consistency reliability of the scales was supported with Cronbach's ranging from 0.81 to 0.96. Construct validity was established with confirmatory factor analysis and testing for differences between individuals who have and have not screened in theoretically proposed directions. These newly translated scales can help investigators expand this research into the large Spanish-speaking lung screening-eligible population as they develop and test critical behavioural interventions to increase lung cancer screening in the at-risk population.

CONCLUSIONS

Development of effective interventions to enhance shared decision-making about lung cancer screening between patients and providers must first identify factors influencing the individual's screening participation. Future efforts facilitating patient-provider conversations are better informed by understanding the perspective of the individual making the decision.

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung cancer screening: A mixed methods systematic review

Numerous factors contribute to the low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) programs. A theory-informed approach to identifying the obstacles and facilitators to LCS uptake is required. This study aimed to identify, assess, and synthesize the available literature at the individual and healthcare provider (HCP) levels based on a social-ecological model and identify gaps to improve practice and policy decision-making. Systematic searches were conducted in nine electronic databases from inception to December 31, 2020. We also searched Google Scholar and manually examined the reference lists of systematic reviews to include relevant articles. Primary studies were scored for quality assessment. Among 3938 potentially relevant articles, 36 studies, including 25 quantitative and 11 qualitative studies, were identified for inclusion in the review. Fifteen common factors were extracted from 34 studies, including nine barriers and six facilitators. The barriers included individual factors (n = 5), health system factors (n = 3), and social/environmental factors (n = 1). The facilitators included only individual factors (n = 6). However, two factors, age and screening harm, remain mixed. This systematic review identified and combined barriers and facilitators to LCS uptake at the individual and HCP levels. The interaction mechanisms among these factors should be further explored, which will allow the construction of tailored LCS recommendations or interventions for the Chinese context.

Barriers and facilitators of lung cancer screening uptake: protocol of a mixed methods systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The global uptake rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT remain low. Since numerous factors contribute to the underuse of LCS, a theory-informed approach to identify and address the uptake of LCS barriers and facilitators is required. This study aims to document the methods which were used to identify, appraise, and synthesise the available qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence, addressing the barriers and facilitators at the individual and healthcare provider level, according to the social-ecological model, before identifying gaps to aid future practices and policies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The following databases will be searched: PubMed, Ovid (Journals @ Ovid Full Text and Ovid MEDLINE), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang database, from their creation up to 31 December 2020. Two reviewers will be involved in independently screening, reviewing, and synthesising the data; and calibration exercises will be conducted at each stage. Disagreements between the two reviewers will be resolved by arbitration by a third reviewer. The Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data from the Joanna Briggs Institute, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme criteria adapted for qualitative studies, and the 16-item Quality Assessment Tool (QATSDD) will be used in the quality assessment of primary studies. We will perform data synthesis using the Review Manager software, V.5.3.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is a review of published data and therefore needs no ethical approval. The findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020162802.

Psychological Traits and the Persuasiveness of Lung Cancer Screening Health Messages

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening remains underused despite its proven mortality benefit. Health systems have attempted to increase screening awareness through advertising. Psychological theories suggest that construal level (a personal orientation toward the big picture or the details) and regulatory focus (goals emphasizing acquisition of a good or avoidance of a bad outcome) play a key role in health advertising effectiveness. These theories have not been examined in a screen-eligible population.

METHODS

Using Amazon's crowdsourcing platform, Mechanical Turk, we identified screen-eligible individuals based on US Preventive Services Task Force criteria. We randomly assigned participants to see 1 of 4 screening advertisement images in a 2 (construal level: high vs low) × 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs prevention) between-subjects experimental design. We assessed willingness to undergo screening after the advertisement.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-one individuals responded to our study invitation (mean age, 61 years). We found that the high construal/promotion focus image led to a greater willingness to screen compared with images representing other psychological states (P = .04). Regarding the personality traits of our respondents, high construal/promotion focus was the most prevalent (40%) trait combination, whereas low construal/prevention focus was the least prevalent (17%).

CONCLUSIONS

The psychological focus of health-related messages affects an individual's willingness to undergo lung cancer screening. Individuals eligible for lung cancer screening are more persuaded by "big picture" messages describing the benefits of screening. Health systems may use this knowledge to design more effective patient-facing communications that lead to higher rates of screening.

Adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the lung cancer screening health belief scales

BACKGROUND

Health belief is an important factor affecting lung cancer screening in high-risk population, but the research based on Chinese cultural background is still insufficient. Therefore, we adapted the English version of the Lung Cancer Screening Health Belief Scales (LCSHB) into the Chinese version (LCSHB-C) and examined its psychometric characteristics.

METHODS

After obtaining authorization from the original author, the LCSHB-C was adapted based upon Brislin's translation model. Using a variety of community-based recruitment methods, a total of 353 participants were recruited in Fuzhou, Fujian province, China to complete the questionnaires. We combined the classical test theory and item response theory to examine the psychometric properties of the LCSHB-C.

RESULTS

The Cronbach's alpha for the four subscales ranged from 0.83 ~ 0.93. The content validity index for the four subscales was ranged from 0.87 ~ 1.0. Confirmatory factor analysis supported each subscale structure model fit well. Rasch analysis results further validated the reliability and validity of the four subscales. The person reliability and separation index of each subscale ranged from 0.77 to 0.87 and 1.83 to 2.63, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The LCSHB-C is a reliable and valid instrument used to measure health beliefs related to lung cancer screening among those high-risk for lung cancer in China, which facilitates the development of lung cancer screening programs and promotes the "three early prevention strategies" of lung cancer (i.e.,early detection, early diagnosis and early treatment).

Worry About the Future Health Issues of Smoking and Intention to Screen for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography

BACKGROUND

Early diagnosis of lung cancer is key to improving the long-term prognosis for many individuals. Still, utilization rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) remain low.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between worry about future health issues of smoking and intention to undergo recommended LCS with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) within the next 3 months.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted using the Qualtrics Panel to recruit adult smokers between ages 54 and 75 years, with no history of lung cancer, and at least 30-pack-year smoking history (n = 152). The survey gathered demographic, socioeconomic, and psychographic information, including intention to screen for lung cancer with LDCT and worry about the future health issues of smoking. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Approximately 43.0% were White, 21.7% were Black, and 60.0% were female. Most (86.0%) reported intentions to undergo recommended LCS with LDCT in the next 3 months. More than one-third (32.0%) reported moderately/very worried about the future health issues of smoking. Smokers who were moderately/very worried had 20% (P = .022) higher odds of reporting an intention to undergo LCS with LDCT than those who were not at all or a little worried.

CONCLUSIONS

Most eligible adults reported intentions to undergo LCS with LDCT. Our study also highlights sex, racial, and socioeconomic differences in LCS behavior.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The study findings provide an opportunity for healthcare providers to have in-depth discussions about the benefits of LCS with those who express worry about future health issues of smoking.

Promoting Community Awareness of Lung Cancer Screening Among Disparate Populations: Results of the cancer-Community Awareness Access Research and Education Project

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the no. 1 cause of cancer death in the United States. Racial/ethnic minority and medically underserved populations suffer higher mortality than whites. Early detection through uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) among screening-eligible adults may mitigate high mortality. However, nearly 5 years since the publication of the US Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guideline, population awareness of LDCT is low, and only 4% of screening-eligible adults have undergone screening.

OBJECTIVE

This project used an education intervention to change participants' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about cancer risk factors and lung cancer and to connect eligible individuals to LDCT screening and tobacco cessation services.

INTERVENTIONS/METHODS

Community-engaged strategies were used to deliver a 4-week educational program in 13 community sites. Trained community health workers delivered the intervention. The intervention was guided by the Health Belief Model. Data were collected by survey to 481 participants; 93% were African American, the majority was female (73.1%), mean age was 58.3 (SD, 10.9) years.

RESULTS

There were knowledge increase regarding lung cancer screening (P = .001), a significant decrease in Perceived Severity and Perceived Barriers subscales (P = .001), and an overall increase in response to Perceived Benefits of lung cancer screening and Self-efficacy (P = .001). Fifty-four percent of tobacco users engaged in cessation; 38% of screening-eligible participants underwent LDCT screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Community health workers are effective in increasing awareness of lung cancer screening and affecting behavior change among disparate populations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Community health workers may have a clinical role in LDCT shared decision making.

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.

Improving Utilization of Lung Cancer Screening Through Incorporating a Video-Based Educational Tool Into Smoking Cessation Counseling

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients, but most of those eligible are not referred for screening, and most eligible smokers are not aware of LCS. Smoking cessation counseling may be an opportune time to educate smokers about LCS. Here we investigate the effect of LCS educational information on LDCT utilization and smoking cessation in LCS-eligible patients receiving smoking cessation counseling.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We randomized 1281 smokers aged 55-80 who underwent smoking cessation services to view a web-based educational video about LCS (n = 1026) or to receive usual care (n = 255). Outcomes included the utilization of chest computed tomographic (CT) scan during 6 months of follow-up, responses to survey questions, and patient-reported abstinence from smoking at 6 months.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six participants (14%) watched the video. Overall, 87 participants (8.5%) in the intervention group underwent any chest CT and 37 (3.6%) underwent LDCT compared to 22 (8.6%) and 11 (4.3%) in the control group during the 6-month follow-up period (P = .94 and .59, respectively). Among participants who completed watching the video, 27 (18.5%) underwent any chest CT and 13 (8.9%) underwent LDCT, compared to 22 (8.6%) and 11 (4.3%) in controls during follow-up (P = .0037 and .062, respectively). There was no difference in abstinence from smoking between groups.

CONCLUSION

An LCS educational intervention may be effective in improving utilization of LDCT in eligible individuals who currently smoke at the time of smoking cessation counseling. Further research on the effect of LCS education in the context of smoking cessation counseling is needed.

Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Community-Based Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening is a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation that has been shown to decrease lung cancer-related mortality by approximately 20%. However, making the decision to screen, or not, for lung cancer is a complex decision because there are potential risks (eg, false positive results, overdiagnosis). Shared decision making was incorporated into the lung cancer screening guideline and, for the first time, is a requirement for reimbursement of a cancer screening test from Medicare. Awareness of lung cancer screening remains low in both the general and screening-eligible populations. When a screening-eligible person visits their clinician never having heard about lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Methods to effectively prepare patients for these clinical encounters and support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are needed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to estimate the effects of a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards that will prepare individuals and support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions.

METHODS

A pilot randomized controlled trial with a community-based sample of 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer was conducted. Approximately half of the participants (n=31) were randomized to view LungTalk-a web-based tailored computer program-while the other half (n=29) viewed generic information about lung cancer screening from the American Cancer Society. The outcomes that were compared included lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), and perception of being prepared to engage in a discussion about lung cancer screening with their clinician.

RESULTS

Knowledge scores increased significantly for both groups with greater improvement noted in the group receiving LungTalk (2.33 vs 1.14 mean change). Perceived self-efficacy and perceived benefits improved in the theoretically expected directions.

CONCLUSIONS

LungTalk goes beyond other decision tools by addressing lung health broadly, in the context of performing a low-dose computed tomography of the chest that has the potential to uncover other conditions of concern beyond lung cancer, to more comprehensively educate the individual, and extends the work of nontailored decision aids in the field by introducing tailoring algorithms and message framing based upon smoking status in order to determine what components of the intervention drive behavior change when an individual is informed and makes the decision whether to be screened or not to be screened for lung cancer.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/resprot.8694.

A questionnaire on factors affecting the precaution adoption process model for cervical cancer - Psychometric properties

BACKGROUND

Implementing a cervical cancer prevention program requires an exploration of certain behaviors concerning this disease. This study is aimed to evaluate the psychometrics of a questionnaire that enquired about the factors involved in Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM) for cervical cancer among suburban women in Bandar Abbas, south of Iran.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The primary draft of the questionnaire was developed with a review of the related literature on cervical cancer and the constructs affecting PAPM, with 68 items. The face validity, content validity ratio (CVR), and content validity index (CVI) of the questionnaire were approved by a panel of 10 experts. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the questionnaire were estimated too. Field testing sample included 300 women recruited from a women's healthcare center in suburban areas of Bandar Abbas in the south of Iran. Exploratory factor analysis was used to evaluate validity, and Cronbach's alpha coefficient was estimated for reliability.

RESULTS

After the face validation, 11 items were eliminated. Once CVR was estimated, two items were discarded. The remaining items had a CVR >0.79. All had a CVI >0.79. Six items were eliminated in the factor analysis. The final questionnaire included 49 items organized in 8 factors including awareness, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, social norms, fear, and self-efficacy. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation indicated eight main components that explained 56.25% of the variance. Reliability assessment showed a good internal consistency for all subscales and the Cronbach's alpha score ranged between 0.82 and 0.90. The test-retest reliability showed that the correlation coefficients (between 0.81 and 0.89) were significant at the 0.01 level for all sub-scales.

CONCLUSIONS

The final questionnaire was a new instrument comprised the effective constructs of PAPM and had a high reliability and validity. Thus, this questionnaire is recommended to be used to explore and enhance preventive behaviors of cervical cancer.

Evaluating Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs About Lung Cancer Screening Using Crowdsourcing

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening, despite its proven mortality benefit, remains vastly underutilized. Previous studies examined knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs to better understand the reasons underlying the low screening rates. These investigations may have limited generalizability because of traditional participant recruitment strategies and examining only subpopulations eligible for screening. The current study used crowdsourcing to recruit a broader population to assess these factors in a potentially more general population.

METHODS

A 31-item survey was developed to assess knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding screening among individuals considered high risk for lung cancer by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. Amazon's crowdsourcing platform (Mechanical Turk) was used to recruit subjects.

RESULTS

Among the 240 respondents who qualified for the study, 106 (44%) reported knowledge of a screening test for lung cancer. However, only 36 (35%) correctly identified low-dose CT scanning as the appropriate test. A total of 222 respondents (93%) reported believing that early detection of lung cancer has the potential to save lives, and 165 (69%) were willing to undergo lung cancer screening if it was recommended by their physician. Multivariable regression analysis found that knowledge of lung cancer screening, smoking status, chronic pulmonary disease, and belief in the efficacy of early detection of lung cancer were associated with willingness to screen.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a minority of individuals at high risk for lung cancer are aware of screening, the majority believe that early detection saves lives and would pursue screening if recommended by their primary care physician. Health systems may increase screening rates by improving patient and physician awareness of lung cancer screening.

Correction to: Development of Decisional Values Statements for Lung Cancer Screening among African American Smokers

The original version of this article unfortunately contained mistakes in Tables 1 and 3.

Development of Decisional Values Statements for Lung Cancer Screening Among African American Smokers

Lung cancer screening via low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been underutilized by high-risk current and former smokers since its approval in 2013. Further, lower use of other evidence-based cancer screening tests (e.g., colorectal cancer, breast cancer) has been noted among African Americans when compared with other racial and ethnic groups. Reasons for low uptake are multilayered but include the need for consideration of patients' personal values about the screening decision. The goal of the present study was to (1) identify positive and negative factors specific to lung cancer screening via LDCT and (2) develop statements to capture values about the screening test for use in a new measure of decisional values. Key informant interviews (n = 9) identified several benefits and risks of lung cancer screening that may be important to African American smokers. Based on these interviews, a pool of items with the values statements was administered to a convenience sample of 119 African Americans [aged 55-80 years, current or former smokers (who quit < 15 years), and without lung cancer]. An exploratory factor analysis revealed two components explaining 64% of the variance: cons of screening (e.g., "make you feel badly about your smoking history") and pros of screening (e.g., "lowering your risk of dying from lung cancer"). The final 12-item measure had very good internal consistency (α = 0.89 overall; α = 0.86 and 0.88 for subscales, respectively). This tool provides a promising values measure for lung cancer screening among African Americans and could inform future values clarification tools promoting informed and shared decision-making.

Challenges to Educating Smokers About Lung Cancer Screening: a Qualitative Study of Decision Making Experiences in Primary Care

We sought to qualitatively explore how those at highest risk for lung cancer, current smokers, experienced, understood, and made decisions about participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) after being offered in the target setting for implementation, routine primary care visits. Thirty-seven current smokers were identified within 4 weeks of being offered LCS at seven sites participating in the Veterans Health Administration Clinical Demonstration Project and interviewed via telephone using semi-structured qualitative interviews. Transcripts were coded by two raters and analyzed thematically using iterative inductive content analysis. Five challenges to smokers' decision-making lead to overestimated benefits and minimized risks of LCS: fear of lung cancer fixated focus on inflated screening benefits; shame, regret, and low self-esteem stemming from continued smoking situated screening as less averse and more beneficial; screening was mistakenly believed to provide general evaluation of lungs and reassurance was sought about potential damage caused by smoking; decision-making was deferred to providers; and indifference about numerical educational information that was poorly understood. Biased understanding of risks and benefits was complicated by emotion-driven, uninformed decision-making. Emotional and cognitive biases may interfere with educating and supporting smokers' decision-making and may require interventions tailored for their unique needs.

Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis

OBJECTIVE

Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour is crucial to identifying potentially modifiable factors for future intervention. Qualititative work has explored attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening from the perspective of the participant, but the theoretically grounded factors that influence screening-eligible individuals to screen are unknown. We tested an explanatory framework for lung cancer screening participation from the individual's perspective.

METHODS

Data were collected as part of a sequential explanatory mixed methods study, the quantitative component of which is reported here. A national purposive sample of 515 screening-eligible participants in the United States was recruited using Facebook-targeted advertisement. Participants completed surveys assessing constructs of the Conceptual Model for Lung Cancer Screening Participation. Path analysis was used to assess the relationships between variables.

RESULTS

Path analyses revealed that a clinician recommendation to screen, higher self-efficacy scores, and lower mistrust scores were directly associated with screening participation (p < 0.05). However, the link between screening behaviour and self-efficacy appeared to be fully mediated by fatalism, lung cancer fear, lung cancer family history, knowledge of lung cancer risk and screening, income, clinician recommendation, and social influence (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that medical mistrust, self-efficacy, and clinician recommendation were significant in the decision of whether to screen for lung cancer. These findings offer insight into potentially modifiable targets most appropriate on which to intervene. This understanding is critical to design meaningful clinician- and patient-focused interventions.

Understanding lung cancer screening behavior: Racial, gender, and geographic differences among Indiana long-term smokers

Lung cancer screening is a relatively new screening option. Inequalities related to screening behavior have been documented in other types of cancer screening. Because stage at presentation drives mortality in lung cancer, it is critical to understand factors that influence screening behavior in lung cancer screening in order to intervene. However, we must first understand where disparities exist in lung cancer screening participation in order to effectively guide intervention efforts. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the association of sociodemographic (including key disparity-related variables) and knowledge with lung cancer screening behavior. This cross-sectional, descriptive study used survey methodology to collect data from 438 screening-eligible individuals in the state of Indiana between January and February 2017 and measured sociodemographic variables and knowledge about lung cancer and screening. Key sociodemographic and health status characteristics associated with screening behavior included race, geographic area of residence, income, health insurance, and family history of lung cancer. Of the variables generally reflective of disparities, key differences were noted by race and geographic area of residence with total knowledge scores as well as screening behavior, respectively. Results indicate key differences in race and geographic area of residence that may perpetuate screening behavior disparities. We have a unique opportunity at this early implementation stage in lung cancer screening to learn what variables influence screening behavior from our target patient population. This knowledge can be used to design equitable patient outreach programs, meaningful, tailored patient engagement materials, and effective patient-clinician decision support tools.

Pilot study of a video intervention to reduce anxiety and promote preparedness for lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) is associated with a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality. Psychological burden is a potential harm associated with LCS, and is a major barrier to utilization. We aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a video intervention designed to reduce anxiety and promote psychological preparedness of LCS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a two group, sequential enrollment pilot study of a video intervention that integrates information on screen criteria, procedures, benefits and harms, and follow-up plan. Participants were enrolled 1-2 weeks prior to baseline LDCT, and the intervention was administered in one in-person session on the day of LDCT. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (pre-screen), immediately after LDCT, and at 1 week, 3 months, and 7 months post-screen. Outcome measures included the SF-12 (HRQOL), STAI (anxiety), psychosocial consequences of LCS (COS-LC), risk perceptions for lung cancer, and a satisfaction tool. The student's t-test was used for exploratory evaluations on change from baseline scores both within and between groups.

RESULTS

Sixteen participants (8 intervention, 8 controls) enrolled and completed the study (61.5% retention). Participants in the control group reported a significantly increased sense of dejection at 1-month and 7-months post-screen as measured by the COS-LC (p = 0.01). Participants were highly satisfied with the intervention.

CONCLUSION

A video intervention that promoted psychological preparedness for LCS was feasible to implement as part of an LCS program and highly accepted by participants.

Development and Usability Testing of a Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Study Protocol

Background

Awareness of lung cancer screening remains low in the screening-eligible population, and when patients visit their clinician never having heard of lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Therefore, methods to effectively support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are essential. To facilitate shared decision making about lung cancer screening, effective methods to prepare patients to have these important discussions with their clinician are needed.

Objective

Our objective is to develop a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument version 4.0 that will support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions.

Methods

Using a 3-phase process, we will develop and test a prototype of a computer-tailored decision support tool in a sample of lung cancer screening-eligible individuals. In phase I, we assembled a community advisory board comprising 10 screening-eligible individuals to develop the prototype. In phase II, we recruited a sample of 13 screening-eligible individuals to test the prototype for usability, acceptability, and satisfaction. In phase III, we are conducting a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer. Outcomes tested include lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), perception of being prepared to engage in a patient-clinician discussion about lung cancer screening, occurrence of a patient-clinician discussion about lung cancer screening, and stage of adoption for lung cancer screening.

Results

Phases I and II are complete. Phase III is underway. As of July 15, 2017, 60 participants have been enrolled into the study, and have completed the baseline survey, intervention, and first follow-up survey. We expect to have results by December 31, 2017 and to have data analysis completed by March 1, 2018.

Conclusions

Results from usability testing indicate that the computer-tailored decision support tool is easy to use, is helpful, and provides a satisfactory experience for the user. At the conclusion of phase III (pilot RCT), we will have preliminary effect sizes to inform a future fully powered RCT on changes in (1) knowledge about lung cancer and screening, (2) perceived risk of lung cancer, (3) perceived benefits of lung cancer screening, (4) perceived barriers to lung cancer screening, (5) self-efficacy for lung cancer screening, and (6) perceptions of being adequately prepared to engage in a discussion with their clinician about lung cancer screening.