Women's Information Needs and Educational Preferences Regarding Lung Cancer Screening

Background: Physicians are less likely to discuss lung cancer screening (LCS) with women, and women have lower awareness of LCS availability. The objective of this qualitative study was to determine information needs, patient-provider communication barriers, and preferences for LCS education among women. Materials and Methods: Eight semistructured qualitative focus groups were conducted with 28 self-identified women meeting LCS eligibility criteria. Participants were recruited through a large health system, from a community-based LCS program, and through a national online database between October 2020 and March 2021. Focus groups were led by a trained moderator via Zoom. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis by investigators. Results: LCS decision-making influences included: (1) Health care provider recommendation; (2) Self-advocacy; (3) Insurance coverage and cost; (4) Family; and (5) Interest in early detection. Participants preferred video and print materials, available at physician's office or shared by physician, without scare tactics or shaming about smoking, use clear language, with diverse participants and images. Preferred content focused on: (1) Benefits of early detection; (2) Lung cancer definition, statistics, and risk factors; (3) Benefits of quitting smoking; (4) Demonstration or explanation of how LCS is done; and (5) Availability of other tests and potential harms of screening. Conclusion: Women in our study had limited awareness of LCS and their eligibility and wanted recommendation and support for LCS from their health care providers. We identified addressable information needs about lung cancer and the screening process that can be used to improve LCS uptake in women and shared decision-making processes.

International needs analysis in orthopaedic trauma for practising surgeons with a 3-year review of resulting actions

Introduction: To ensure best-quality education in orthopaedic trauma, the AOTrauma Education Commission conducted a Global Needs Analysis with practising surgeons worldwide.

Material and methods: During July to November 2012, an email invitation to complete an online set of 30 questions in eight languages was sent to our members and associates in all countries through AOTrauma’s regional networks. Non-members were invited to participate through collaboration with orthopaedic societies.

Results: A total of 3,790 surgeons practising orthopaedic trauma (49%), orthopaedic (15%), general trauma (15%) and specialty orthopaedic (13%) surgeons responded worldwide. Seventy per cent completed all questions, and the top 10 countries accounted for half the responses. The top 3 areas of educational need were orthopaedic trauma, joint replacement and preservation, and pelvis and acetabulum. Aspects influencing likelihood to attend face-to-face courses were: expert faculty, focus on a specific topic, clear objectives, and discussion and feedback from experts. Barriers to attending courses were time away from practice, cost and lack of availability or access.

Conclusion: The Global Needs Analysis helped our educational committees to identify short- and mid-term priorities over recent years. Adjustments in our planning have helped meet the needs of our audience on a global, regional and national level.