[Problems posed to the anesthesiologist by ophthalmologic surgery].

D. Gonzales,C. Deret,J. Haberer

1985-10-01

Abstract:L'anesthesie generale est le meilleur choix et offre les meilleurs avantages: akinesie, pression intraoculaire reduite, controle du reflexe oculo-cardiaque, diminution du saignement au cours de la microchirurgie

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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

M. Tingen,S. Looney,T. Joshua,A. Mccall,Lovoria B. Williams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000748

IF: 2.6

2019-10-10

Cancer Nursing

Abstract: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.

Medicine
Design of a Community-Based Lung Cancer Education, Prevention, and Screening Program

Lovoria B. Williams,Amber McCall,Thomas V. Joshua,Stephen W. Looney,Martha S. Tingen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945919827261

2019-01-30

Western Journal of Nursing Research

Abstract:Uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening is extremely low. Efforts to promote screening are warranted, especially among disparate groups such as racial/ethnic minorities and those of lower socioeconomic status. This article describes the design and implementation strategies of the ongoing cancer-Community Awareness Access Research and Education (c-CARE) program. The purpose of c-CARE is to increase community awareness of lung cancer screening through education. Community health workers were trained to implement the intervention in 12 community sites. The Health Belief Model guided the evaluation and intervention development methods. Aims include changing participants’ knowledge, attitude, and beliefs related to lung cancer and increasing lung cancer early detection and prevention behaviors by identifying and connecting high-risk and/or nicotine-dependent individuals to LDCT screening and/or tobacco cessation services. If effective, these methods could model increased dissemination to other high-risk communities.

nursing
Successes and challenges of implementing a lung cancer screening program in federally qualified health centers: a qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Caitlin G Allen,Megan M Cotter,Robert A Smith,Lesley Watson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibaa121

2020-12-08

Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract:Abstract In recent years, studies have shown that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a safe and effective way to screen high-risk adults for lung cancer. Despite this, uptake remains low, especially in limited-resource settings. The American Cancer Society (ACS) partnered with two federally qualified health centers and accredited screening facilities on a 2 year pilot project to implement an LDCT screening program. Both sites attempted to develop a referral program and care coordination practices to move patients through the screening continuum and identify critical facilitators and barriers to implementation. Evaluators conducted key informant interviews (N = 46) with clinical and administrative staff, as well as regional ACS staff during annual site visits. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided our analysis of factors associated with effective implementation and improved screening outcomes. One study site established a sustainable lung screening program, while the other struggled to overcome significant implementation barriers. Increased time spent with patients, disruption to normal workflows, and Medicaid reimbursement policies presented challenges at both sites. Supportive, engaged leaders and knowledgeable champions who provided clear implementation guidance improved staff engagement and were able to train, guide, and motivate staff throughout the intervention. A slow, stepwise implementation process allowed one site’s project champions to pilot test new processes and resolve issues before scaling up. This pilot study provides critical insights into the necessary resources and steps for successful lung cancer screening program implementation in underserved settings. Future efforts can build upon these findings and identify and address possible facilitators and barriers to screening program implementation.

public, environmental & occupational health
Achieving Equitable Lung Cancer Screening Implementation in a Texas Safety Net Health System

Michael Pignone,Patrick Chang,Nicole Kluz,Brandon Altillo,Andrea Fekete,Amaris Martinez,Rachel Medbery,Yvonne Queralt,Koonj Shah,LaTasha Vanin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2024.09.016

2024-09-27

Abstract:Introduction: A lung cancer screening program using low dose CT (LDCT) in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in Central Texas was developed and assessed for equitable implementation. Methods: From 11/2020-8/2023, patients aged 55-77 years who currently smoked or quit within 15 years with ≥20 pack-years of exposure were identified through EHR query and mailed outreach, or through direct provider referrals. A bilingual social worker confirmed eligibility, provided telecare shared decision-making (SDM), coordinated screening, and offered smoking cessation. To assess equity, LDCT completion across demographics was compared, in 2023. Results: A total of 6,486 patients were mailed outreach materials; 479 patients responded, of whom 108 (22.5%) were eligible and 71 (65.7%) participated in SDM. 629 eligible patients were referred internally; 579 (92.0%) completed SDM. Of the 650 patients who completed SDM, 636 (97.8%) agreed to screening. Mean age was 61.7 years; 38.1% were female. The population was diverse: 35.8% identified as Latino, 17.8% as African-American, 26.8% had Medicare or Medicaid, 48.0% used the county medical assistance program, 14.2% were uninsured, and 76.7% currently smoked. Overall, 528 (83.0%) patients completed LDCT. There were no statistically significant differences in completion by age, gender, race/ethnicity, or insurance status. Spanish-speaking patients were more likely to complete the CT than English speakers (OR 2.22, 95% CI=1.22, 4.41) and those who formerly smoked were more likely to complete the CT than patients who currently smoked (OR 1.93, 95% CI=1.12, 3.51). Conclusions: The navigator-centered program achieved equitable implementation of lung cancer screening in a diverse FQHC system.
Safety and efficiency of influenza vaccination in systemic lupus erythematosus patients.

L. Wallin,W. Quintilio,F. Locatelli,Albino Cassel,M. B. Silva,T. Skare

2009-07-01

Abstract:INTRODUCTION Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients have a higher infection rate than the general population. The role of influenza vaccination in SLE patients has been a matter of discussion due to the risk of disease exacerbation and to the influence of the disease and its treatment on vaccine efficacy. OBJECTIVE To study safety and efficiency of influenza vaccination in SLE patients. METHODS We studied 47 SLE patients and 27 healthy controls for influenza hemagglutinin titers before and 6 weeks after immunization. SLE patients were scored for disease activity by SLEDAI before and after receiving the vaccine. We also studied antibody titers in SLE patients according to the use of glucocorticoid, methotrexate and azathioprine. RESULTS Seroprotection after vaccination was equal in SLE patients and healthy controls although seroconvertion was lower in SLE patients for one of the three antigens tested. No significant increase in SLEDAI was observed. Medications such as methotrexate and azathioprine did not change the mean titers of antibody response but glucocorticoids did affect the response to one of the antigens. CONCLUSIONS Although immune response to influenza vaccine in SLE patients may be diminished it is safe and effective.
Blocking bad.

S. Scherer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awv279

Abstract:
Efforts to increase the application of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT): A resident-led strategy to improve lung cancer screening in an urban primary care clinic.

Kyle Austin Sugg,Rahul Vyas,Asra Shaik,Jasdeep Bathla,Astha Saini,Nagasai Yalavarthi,Mariam Raheem,Anupama Devara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.2023.19.11_suppl.132

2023-11-01

JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract:132 Background: Lung cancer carries the highest mortality rate of all malignancies, implicated in approximately 20% of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The 2011 National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) established a 20% reduction in lung cancer-associated mortality associated with annual LDCT screening in high-risk populations compared to screening chest radiography. In 2013 the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) adopted this approach into their recommendations, with a subsequent update in 2021 establishing a recommended annual LDCT screening for those at high risk. There remains a concerning lack of access to PCP-initiated LDCT screening in medically underserved (e.g., urban, rural) areas, translating to relatively low rates of early lung cancer detection. Methods: Any patient meeting the 2021 USPSTF criteria (at least 20-pack-year history of tobacco use, who still smoke or have quit within the past 15 years) was deemed eligible. Excluded were those meeting these criteria and any patient who had received LDCT within the past 12 months. The pre-intervention stage of this study included a 15-week data collection of chart review to establish baseline rates. The intervention involved an educational flyer detailing the guidelines for lung cancer screening, placed in each clinic exam room to promote patient self-assessment of eligibility. Results: In the 15-week control group (i.e., pre-intervention), 177 patients were eligible for LDCT screening, with 65 successful LDCT orders and 112 not ordered (36.7% screened appropriately) and 27 (41.5%) LDCT orders completed. Through the 15 weeks of post-intervention data, 193 patients were eligible for LDCT screening, with 99 orders placed and 94 not (51.3% screened appropriately), and 42 (42.4%) of these LDCT orders were completed. Conclusions: The initial goal set for this project was a 50% lung cancer screening rate among eligible patients, with at least 50% of those LDCT orders performed by the patient. There was a remarkable improvement in LDCT ordering rates; however, the primary goal of these ordering improvement rates was to translate them into a higher percentage of patients completing these orders. Despite the increase in LDCT orders, the percentage completed stagnated (41.5% pre-intervention, 42.4% post-intervention). It was essential to our team that the interventions remain cost-effective. We did achieve this using printed flyers, allowing for patient-initiated involvement in the process. Using these interventions as a template, a clinic in any setting may benefit their LDCT ordering rates. However, these measures alone will not improve the percentage of patients completing the LDCT orders. As our project continues, we plan to modify the intervention to reflect constructive feedback from the resident physicians and patients involved.

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

Soumya J. Niranjan,William Opoku-Agyeman,Claudia M. Hardy,Tara Bowman,Agasthya Vedre-Kyanam,Kristine Ria Hearld,Mark T. Dransfield,Monica L. Baskin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-022-02261-w

2023-01-19

Journal of Cancer Education

Abstract: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.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health,education, scientific disciplines
Training and Dissemination of Lung Cancer Education Curriculum Among Community Health Advisors in the Deep South: a Program Evaluation

Amir M. Ahmed,Claudia M. Hardy,Tara Bowman,Olusean Akinyele,Meghan Tipre,Molly B. Richardson,Monica L. Baskin,Soumya J. Niranjan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-022-02149-9

2022-03-07

Journal of Cancer Education

Abstract:Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in the USA. In the rural Black Belt region of Alabama, high rates of lung cancer incidence and mortality coupled with disproportionate lack of access to health services stresses the need for navigating high risk and disproportionately affected groups towards successfully obtaining lung cancer screenings. We utilized our well-accepted Community Health Advisor (CHA) model for education and awareness. This study seeks to evaluate the results of the Alabama Lung Cancer Awareness, Screening, and Education (ALCASE) training on CHAs, program evaluation, and lessons learned. A total of 202 participants were eligible and enrolled for CHA training. One hundred thirty CHAs were included for the final analyses. Descriptive statistics were computed; differences in pre-test and post-test scores were compared across demographic characteristics of the participants using paired t-test/one-way ANOVA. Of the 130 CHAs, 46% were 65 years or older; 98% were African Americans, and 87% were female; 17% of participants were cancer survivors. The mean post-test scores were 2.2 points greater than mean pre-test scores, and the difference was significant (mean (SD): pre-test = 20.8 (2.8) versus post-test = 23 (2.2); p = 0.001). No notable difference in pre-test and post-test scores were observed by CHA's demographic characteristics except by their county of residence or work (p = 0.0019). We demonstrate the capability and value of successfully recruiting and training motivated community members to be able to serve educators to better reach medically underserved and historically excluded communities.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health,education, scientific disciplines
Using community health advisors to increase lung cancer screening awareness in the Black Belt: A pilot study.

Soumya J. Niranjan,William Opoku-Agyeman,Tara Bowman,Claudia M. Hardy,Monica L. Baskin,Mark T. Dransfield

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2020.39.28_suppl.117

IF: 45.3

2021-10-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:117 Background: 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. Methods: 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).100 individuals (i) aged between 55 to 80 years (ii) Currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. (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). Results: 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, only 23 underwent screening due to lack of access to primary care providers and reluctance of PCPs to provide referral to LCS. 65% of those who were screened reported family history of lung cancer. Regression analysis revealed no significant association between risk factors and the decision to get screened by participants. Conclusions: 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.

oncology
A new communication approach to encourage lung cancer screening action in rural eligible populations

Dannell Boatman,Lauren McCauley-Hixenbaugh,Abby Starkey,Amy Allen,Stephenie Kennedy-Rea

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100298

2024-06-01

Abstract:Objective: The purpose of this study was to develop an effective communication approach to encourage lung cancer screening action within rural screening-eligible populations. Methods: An iterative research approach using targeted engagement with the priority population was used. Findings were triangulated through multiple methods, including two surveys and concept testing interviews. The Health Belief Model and the Extended Parallel Process Model served as study frameworks. Results: Initial findings suggest that threat levels are high in the priority population and an emphasis on barrier mitigation messaging may drive action. Health campaign posters integrating these findings were developed and tested with the priority population. The new health campaign posters were tested against examples of previously used health campaign posters. Findings suggest that the new health campaign posters were more effective in spurring lung cancer screening motivation and intention to act in the priority population compared to current health campaign poster examples. Conclusion: Messaging focused on gain-framing, inoculation messaging, and barrier mitigation may be more effective in encouraging lung cancer screening action in rural eligible populations. Innovation: This project outlines a systematic process to developing effective, targeted communication approaches using behavior change and persuasive communication frameworks along with engagement from priority populations.
Adapting Community Educational Programs During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparing the Feasibility and Efficacy of a Lung Cancer Screening Educational Intervention by Mode of Delivery

Elizabeth G. Bouchard,Frances G. Saad-Harfouche,Nikia Clark,Jomary Colon,Susan A. LaValley,Mary Reid,Kristopher Attwood,Maansi Bansal-Travers,Kathryn Glaser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-022-02197-1

2022-07-16

Journal of Cancer Education

Abstract:Few eligible patients receive lung cancer screening. We developed the Lung AIR (awareness, information, and resources) intervention to increase community education regarding lung cancer screening. The intervention was designed as an in-person group intervention; however, the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated adapting the mode of delivery. In this study we examined intervention feasibility and efficacy overall and by mode of delivery (in-person group vs. one-on-one phone) to understand the impact of adapting community outreach and engagement strategies. Feasibility was examined through participant demographics. Efficacy was measured through pre/post knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about lung cancer screening, and intention to complete screening. We reached N = 292 participants. Forty percent had a household income below $35,000, 58% had a high school degree or less, 40% were Hispanic, 57% were Black, and 84% reported current or past smoking. One-on-one phone sessions reached participants who were older, had lower incomes, more current smoking, smoked for more years, more cigarettes per day, lower pre-intervention lung cancer screening knowledge, and higher pre-intervention fear and worry Overall pre/post test scores show significant increases in knowledge, salience, and coherence, and reduced fear and worry. Participants in the one-on-one phone sessions had significantly higher increases in salience and coherence and intention to complete screening compared to participants in the in-person group sessions. The Lung AIR intervention is a feasible and effective community-based educational intervention for lung cancer screening. Findings point to differences in reach and efficacy of the community-based intervention by mode of delivery.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health,education, scientific disciplines
Implementation of Digital Awareness Strategies to Engage Patients and Providers in a Lung Cancer Screening Program: Retrospective Study

Dana L Jessup,McKinley Glover,Dania Daye,Lynda Banzi,Philip Jones,Garry Choy,Jo-Anne O Shepard,Efrén J Flores,McKinley Glover IV

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8932

IF: 7.076

2018-02-15

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Despite mandated insurance coverage for eligible patients, lung cancer screening rates remain low. Digital platforms, including social media, provide a potentially valuable tool to enhance health promotion and patient engagement related to lung cancer screening (LCS).OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the effectiveness of LCS digital awareness campaigns on utilization of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and visits to institutional online educational content.METHODS: A pay-per-click campaign utilizing Google and Facebook targeted adults aged 55 years and older and caregivers aged 18 years and older (eg, spouses, adult children) with LCS content during a 20-week intervention period from May to September 2016. A concurrent pay-per-click campaign using LinkedIn and Twitter targeted health care providers with LCS content. Geographic target radius was within 60 miles of an academic medical center. Social media data included aggregate demographics and click-through rates (CTRs). Primary outcome measures were visits to institutional Web pages and scheduled LDCT exams. Study period was 20 weeks before, during, and after the digital awareness campaigns.RESULTS: Weekly visits to the institutional LCS Web pages were significantly higher during the digital awareness campaigns compared to the 20-week period prior to implementation (mean 823.9, SD 905.8 vs mean 51, SD 22.3, P=.001). The patient digital awareness campaign surpassed industry standard CTRs on Google (5.85%, 1108/18,955 vs 1.8%) and Facebook (2.59%, 47,750/1,846,070 vs 0.8%). The provider digital awareness campaign surpassed industry standard CTR on LinkedIn (1.1%, 630/57,079 vs 0.3%) but not Twitter (0.19%, 1139/587,133 vs 0.25%). Mean scheduled LDCT exam volumes per week before, during, and after the digital awareness campaigns were 17.4 (SD 7.5), 20.4 (SD 5.4), and 26.2 (SD 6.4), respectively, with the difference between the mean number of scheduled exams after the digital awareness campaigns and the number of exams scheduled before and after the digital awareness campaigns being statistically significant (P<.001).CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the LCS digital awareness campaigns was associated with increased visits to institutional educational Web pages and scheduled LDCT exams. Digital platforms are an important tool to enhance health promotion activities and engagement with patients and providers.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Multimodal interventions targeting identified barriers to improve lung cancer screening in northeast Georgia.

Swathi Kanakamedala,Shivang Danak,Andria P Caton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.6570

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:6570 Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths with over 50% of patients diagnosed at an advanced stage. Lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines were recently updated in 2021, which expanded the age group and reduced the pack years, and thereby increased eligibility. However, the underutilization of low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans is seen nationwide. In 2015, the National Health Interview Survey found that only 3.9% of eligible adults underwent LCS. The barriers for LCS identified in national literature included failure of electronic medical records (EMR) to notify providers of eligible patients, lack of insurance coverage, patient refusal, and lack of patient and provider awareness. This quality improvement project was performed to improve LCS in primary care clinics (graduate medical education [GME] and non-GME) at a tertiary medical center in northeast Georgia by addressing these barriers. Methods: In GME clinics, the goal was to double LDCT scans from 14 to 28 monthly. In non-GME clinics, the goal was to increase LDCT scans by at least 50% from 28 to 42 weekly. LDCT scans performed between January 1st to May 31st 2022 was used as baseline data. The interventions spanned over six months, from June 1st to November 30th 2022. Multimodal interventions were used to target various barriers. Accurate tobacco history in the EMR was improved by participating in the nationwide Just Ask Campaign. Flyers posted in clinics provided information on current guidelines and a QR code for patients to determine their LCS eligibility. Provider reference guides highlighted LCS guidelines and billing codes. Community events and social media were used to spread LCS awareness. Results: During the implementation phase, the average monthly LDCT scans increased to 23 scans in GME clinics and 40 scans weekly in non-GME clinics. In GME clinics, the goal of 28 scans monthly was achieved in one out of six months. In non-GME clinics, the goal of 42 scans weekly was surpassed in four out of six months. The Long-Range Acoustic Device (L-RAD) scoring system helped diagnose three cancers in the GME clinics and about one cancer for every 10 L-RAD4 in non-GME clinics. The baseline period LDCT scans of 78 (GME) and 656 (non-GME) increased to 177 (GME) and 1109 (non-GME) during the intervention period. Conclusions: This multimodal approach in addressing known barriers to increase LCS across primary care clinics in a single healthcare system is feasible and was associated with short-term improvements. Although the targets were not met every month, there was a notable improvement during the intervention period. A major limitation was the inability to determine which intervention had the greatest impact. A newly identified barrier was the lack of follow up scans being ordered by providers. This project demonstrates the potential to increase LCS using a multimodal approach, which can be implemented in similar healthcare systems.

oncology
Abstract A103: Use of a combined systems and design framework to assess and improve lung cancer screening for underserved rural population

Rian M. Hasson,Karen E. Schifferdecker,Shaun A. Golding,Shani Bardach,Linda M. Kinney,Maureen B. Boardman,Ellie Kyung,Sean R. Halloran,Samuel L. Youkilis,Amanda N. Perry,Vrushabh P. Ladage,Tom Bird

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp22-a103

2023-01-10

Abstract:Lung cancer screening (LCS) is severely under-utilized by eligible individuals living in rural areas. The purpose of this study is to increase LCS in a rural population by applying a combined systems and design approach to identify needed health system-level changes and to proactively identify potential facilitators and roadblocks for the changes across multiple levels in an academic medical center. Data to identify system-level processes and gaps included LCS referral and screening data, 26 stakeholder interviews with providers, clinical staff and potential eligible patients, review of health record fields for smoking history, and LCS process mapping, including potential pathways of referral and notification of eligibility. Design thinking was applied by assessing potential facilitators and roadblocks across different levels for changes, including higher-level institution commitment, financial implications of increased LCS (i.e., return on investment), gaps in process-level resources (e.g., accredited scanners, time for shared decision making), and overall stigma related to smoking. Results indicated overall support for LCS by all stakeholders but a lack of knowledge about LCS among potential patients and challenges to easily identify eligible patients and finding time for shared-decision making and smoking cessation required for LCS referrals among providers. Further investigation showed lack of full EHR documentation of smoking history due partially to insufficient fields in the EHR to document full smoking history or to calculate pack years which led to largely inaccurate automated LCS eligibility notifications. Targeted interventions based on the system findings include adding smoking history fields and calculators in the EHR to adequately document smoking history and identify eligible patients, creating an education and question-based pamphlet for patients visiting primary care to prompt accurate history documentation and LCS conversation, provider letters to highlight an existing Lung Health Center resource for SDM and smoking cessation, avoiding stigmatizing language (e.g., "smoker"), and highlighting health versus cancer (Lung Health Check versus Lung Cancer Screening) in patient-facing materials. Application of design thinking led to identifying sustainable interventions within existing processes and arranging leadership meetings to establish LCS ROI and personnel/equipment justifications to support and sustain increased LCS referrals. Models of healthcare improvement, such as those promoted by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, focus largely on system-level analyses without adequate attention to design thinking which may lead to interventions that are limited in scope or subject to obstacles that limit success. This study demonstrates that using wider and multiple lens for improving LCS in a rural population allows for human-centered and system-centered approaches that may better address gaps in care for individuals at high risk for inadequate care and provide them services that they deserve. Citation Format: Rian M. Hasson, Karen E. Schifferdecker, Shaun A. Golding, Shani Bardach, Linda M. Kinney, Maureen B. Boardman, Ellie Kyung, Sean R. Halloran, Samuel L. Youkilis, Amanda N. Perry, Vrushabh P. Ladage, Tom Bird. Use of a combined systems and design framework to assess and improve lung cancer screening for underserved rural population [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl) nr A103.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
A stepped-wedge randomized trial protocol of a community intervention for increasing lung screening through engaging primary care providers (I-STEP)

Ana S Salazar,Subhjit Sekhon,Karthik W Rohatgi,Akua Nuako,Jingxia Liu,Courtney Harriss,Ellen Brennan,Dareld LaBeau,Ibrahim Abdalla,Christopher Schulze,Jackie Muenks,Dave Overlot,Jeri Ann Higgins,Linda S Jones,Colleen Swick,Stacia Goings,Jennifer Badiu,Justin Walker,Graham A Colditz,Aimee S James

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2020.105991

Abstract:Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality, yet few eligible high-risk patients receive it annually. This protocol describes a community-partnered intervention (Toolkit) designed to support primary care practices in making referrals for lung screening and guiding patients into appropriate screening pathways. This study uses a stepped-wedge implementation design. Screening centers are randomized by readiness level to enter the intervention phase in three-month "steps" with pre-intervention data serving as the control. The primary outcome is whether delivery of the Toolkit to primary care practices results in a monthly increase in number of initial LDCT screenings. Six participating centers will identify 10 practices and reach 2-3 providers per practice to train them to use the Toolkit. The Toolkit will address known barriers to screening and referral at the patient and provider levels and provide support for required elements of screening. Toolkit components include adaptable evidence-based interventions to maximize compatibility with workflows. We hypothesize that after nine months of intervention delivery, the number of initial screening per center will double. Involving 60 practices achieves 80% power at 5% level of significance. Implementation outcomes such as adoption, acceptability, feasibility, adaptation, and sustainability will be assessed through field-notes and activity logs. LDCT for lung cancer screening currently reaches a small fraction of eligible adults. To reach the full potential to reduce mortality, primary care practices are an important venue for increasing appropriate referrals. This multidisciplinary trial will encourage acceptability and sustainability by using local knowledge and promoting partnership between providers and patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03958253.
Abstract B085: Increasing utilization of breast cancer risk assessment tools: Identifying and adapting implementation strategies using multiple stakeholder groups

Rebecca Selove,Lucy Spalluto,Maureen Sanderson,Laura Ernst,Carolyn Audet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.advbc23-b085

IF: 11.2

2024-02-02

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: Each year ~12,000 female breast cancers are diagnosed in US women ages 18-45 with overrepresentation of aggressive cancers, advanced stage disease at diagnosis, and inferior outcomes. The American College of Radiology and American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend that breast cancer risk assessment (RA) start no later than age 30 to identify high-risk individuals in whom to initiate screening earlier. However, RA tools are currently utilized in as few as 3-26% of eligible women. Methods: Our study aims are to assess feasibility, reach, acceptability, and appropriateness of customized strategies to increase uptake of breast cancer RA. We identified barriers to increasing utilization of RA tools through discussions with long-term community partners in the Tennessee Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program (TBCSP), a three-phase adapted Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) in five health clinics, and one-on-one interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research with 24 providers in public health settings and 37 interviews guided by the Health Belief Model with Black women age 30-50 years with no personal history of breast cancer. Interview data contributed to the development of a conceptual framework to depict influences of provider behavior in the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment. Using the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool and working with the study's Community Advisory Board (CAB), the research team identified three potential strategies to increase the use of breast cancer RA in public health settings. Findings: Selected strategies included having a site champion for each clinic, offering a short series of education modules, and distributing print educational materials including a provider education sheet and patient-facing information cards. These strategies were further revised in collaboration with the CAB and patients and providers in Community Engagement Studios. Implications for D&I Research: This project demonstrates the contributions of a long-standing relationship with a state-wide public health agency, implementation science tools, and collaboration with community advisors for identifying and addressing barriers to breast cancer RA. The study has generated replicable scripts for educating providers and community-informed reproducible patient education materials to increase breast cancer RA. Evaluation of the impact of these strategies on provider behavior in six clinical settings is currently underway. Citation Format: Rebecca Selove, Lucy Spalluto, Maureen Sanderson, Laura Ernst, Carolyn Audet. Increasing utilization of breast cancer risk assessment tools: Identifying and adapting implementation strategies using multiple stakeholder groups [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Advances in Breast Cancer Research; 2023 Oct 19-22; San Diego, California. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(3 Suppl_1) nr B085.

oncology
Interventions Designed to Increase the Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening: An Equity-Oriented Scoping Review

Ambreen Sayani,Muhanad Ahmed Ali,Pooja Dey,Ann Marie Corrado,Carolyn Ziegler,Erika Nicholson,Aisha Lofters

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtocrr.2023.100469

2023-02-02

Abstract:Introduction: Participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) is lower in populations with the highest burden of lung cancer risk (through the social patterning of smoking behavior) and lowest levels of health care utilization (through structurally inaccessible care) leading to a widening of health inequities. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework to inform equitable access to LCS by illuminating knowledge and implementation gaps in interventions designed to increase the uptake of LCS. We comprehensively searched for LCS interventions (Ovid Medline, Excerpta Medica database, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Scopus from 2000 to June 22, 2021) and included peer-reviewed articles and gray literature published in the English language that describe an intervention designed to increase the uptake of LCS, charted data using our previously published tool and conduced a health equity analysis to determine the intended-unintended and positive-negative outcomes of the interventions for populations experiencing the greatest inequities. Results: Our search yielded 3572 peer-reviewed articles and 54,292 pieces of gray literature. Ultimately, we included 35 peer-reviewed articles and one gray literature. The interventions occurred in the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy, focusing on shared decision-making, the use of electronic health records as reminders, patient navigation, community-based campaigns, and mobile computed tomography scanners. We developed an equity-oriented LCS framework and mapped the dimensions and outcomes of the interventions on access to LCS on the basis of approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability, and appropriateness of the intervention. No intervention was mapped across all five dimensions. Most notably, knowledge and implementation gaps were identified in dimensions of acceptability, availability, and affordability. Conclusions: Interventions that were most effective in improving access to LCS targeted priority populations, raised community-level awareness, tailored materials for sociocultural acceptability, did not depend on prior patient engagement/registration with the health care system, proactively considered costs related to participation, and enhanced utilization through informed decision-making.
Abstract A122: Development and pilot testing of an EHR-based provider-level intervention to promote equity in lung cancer screening

Randi M. Williams,Julia Whealan,Joseph Blumenthal,Kristie Foley,Kathryn L. Taylor,Lucile Adams-Campbell,Kristen E. Miller,Rachelle Barnes,William F. DuBoyce,Heather Kratz,Kenneth W. Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp22-a122

2023-01-10

Abstract:Introduction: Black/African Americans (AA) have the highest lung cancer incidence and mortality compared to other racial and ethnic groups; however, provider-initiated discussions with eligible patients about lung cancer screening (LCS) are low overall, and AA and other minority individuals are less likely than Whites to have these discussions. To target lack of provider-initiated discussion about lung screening, we describe the development and feasibility of a provider-level prompt for a planned multilevel intervention to promote equitable uptake of LCS. Methods: We used an iterative process to refine a provider prompt delivered in the Electronic Health Record (EHR; Cerner Health). First, we conducted surveys with MedStar Health primary care providers (N=22) to examine existing system tools for identifying screen-eligible patients, design-related provider preferences (e.g., content, format), and delivery and usefulness of the prompt (e.g., timing, likelihood of prompting LCS discussion). Next, we completed shadowing (N=11 visits) to observe the primary care clinic workflow. We conducted usability testing (N=7) to finalize the prompt. We partnered with a MedStar Primary Care Clinic (Mitchellville, MD) to evaluate the feasibility of implementing the prompt over a 6 month period. Utilizing an automated report to identify patients (50-80 years with a smoking history) with an upcoming visit, we sent the prompt to providers prior to the visits to notify them of the patient's possible eligibility and encourage discussion of the test. Results: Of the providers who completed the survey, the majority were attending physicians (81.8%). Providers were shown a mock-up and 95% reported it was enough information to prompt them to have a discussion with their patients. Most (86.4%) said the optimal time to receive the prompt would be within 24 hours of the visit. During the usability testing, providers were given two formats and patient scenarios and they identified content that should be removed (e.g., screenshots of how to place the order, repeated hyperlinks). Most preferred the patient smoking history presented in a tabular format and liked the addition of color for visual appeal. In the 12-month period pre-intervention, the pilot clinic patient population (N=1223) were majority AA (91%) and over 90% were missing complete pack-year data (required for LCS eligibility). During the pilot period, 64% of records were eligible for the provider prompt and 45% of patients' pack-year data were updated post-appointment. Conclusions: These findings describe a promising provider-level intervention to identify patients and prompt provider-initiated discussion about smoking history and LCS. As a next step, we will evaluate the impact of the prompt on LCS orders. We will also pilot a patient-level intervention to improve provider-patient communication about screening. We intend to look at the effect of these combined interventions on LCS behaviors among AA and White patients. Citation Format: Randi M. Williams, Julia Whealan, Joseph Blumenthal, Kristie Foley, Kathryn L. Taylor, Lucile Adams-Campbell, Kristen E. Miller, Rachelle Barnes, William F. DuBoyce, Heather Kratz, Kenneth W. Lin. Development and pilot testing of an EHR-based provider-level intervention to promote equity in lung cancer screening [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl) nr A122.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Key Informants’ Perspectives on Implementing a Comprehensive Lung Cancer Screening Program in a Safety Net Healthcare System: Leadership, Successes, and Barriers

Maria C. Mejia,Roger Zoorob,Sandra Gonzalez,Maribel Mosqueda,Robert Levine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01931-x

2021-01-08

Journal of Cancer Education

Abstract:Implementing evidence-based practice (EBP) in a safety net healthcare system is challenging. This study examined factors associated with feasibility and potential facilitators and barriers which might affect the implementation of a new evidence-based comprehensive primary care and community health–based program aiming to promote efficient and equitable delivery of Lung Cancer Screening and Tobacco Cessation (LCS-TC). Fifty-three key informants were interviewed. Informants discussed their perceptions of adoption of screening and appropriate referral practices across 15 community health centers. They also identified barriers and facilitators to implementing the LCS-TC program. Interview data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Three major themes representing facilitators and barriers were identified: (1) Allocation of resources and services coverage; (2) need for a collaborative process to engage stakeholders and identify champions; and (3) stakeholders need different types of evidence to support implementation. The top three activities identified as essential for success included provision of sufficient resources for radiologic screening (30%); using non-physician staff for screening (30%); and minimizing the time healthcare providers need to contribute (23%). Conversely, the top three barriers were lack of resources for screening and treatment (60%); insufficient time to address complex patient problems (36%); and perceived lack of patient buy-in (30%). Models for EBP implementation provide stepwise guidance; however, particular contextual factors act as facilitators or barriers to the process. Findings inform EBP implementation efforts regarding resources and key barriers to success around organizational-level supports and promotion of suitable EBP programs.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health,education, scientific disciplines

[Problems posed to the anesthesiologist by ophthalmologic surgery].

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

Design of a Community-Based Lung Cancer Education, Prevention, and Screening Program

Successes and challenges of implementing a lung cancer screening program in federally qualified health centers: a qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Achieving Equitable Lung Cancer Screening Implementation in a Texas Safety Net Health System

Safety and efficiency of influenza vaccination in systemic lupus erythematosus patients.

Blocking bad.

Efforts to increase the application of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT): A resident-led strategy to improve lung cancer screening in an urban primary care clinic.

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

Training and Dissemination of Lung Cancer Education Curriculum Among Community Health Advisors in the Deep South: a Program Evaluation

Using community health advisors to increase lung cancer screening awareness in the Black Belt: A pilot study.

A new communication approach to encourage lung cancer screening action in rural eligible populations

Adapting Community Educational Programs During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparing the Feasibility and Efficacy of a Lung Cancer Screening Educational Intervention by Mode of Delivery

Implementation of Digital Awareness Strategies to Engage Patients and Providers in a Lung Cancer Screening Program: Retrospective Study

Multimodal interventions targeting identified barriers to improve lung cancer screening in northeast Georgia.

Abstract A103: Use of a combined systems and design framework to assess and improve lung cancer screening for underserved rural population

A stepped-wedge randomized trial protocol of a community intervention for increasing lung screening through engaging primary care providers (I-STEP)

Abstract B085: Increasing utilization of breast cancer risk assessment tools: Identifying and adapting implementation strategies using multiple stakeholder groups

Interventions Designed to Increase the Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening: An Equity-Oriented Scoping Review

Abstract A122: Development and pilot testing of an EHR-based provider-level intervention to promote equity in lung cancer screening

Key Informants’ Perspectives on Implementing a Comprehensive Lung Cancer Screening Program in a Safety Net Healthcare System: Leadership, Successes, and Barriers