Use of Erythropoietin for Cardiovascular Protection

F. Bahlmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10557-008-6111-1

2008-05-24

Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Patients' Attitudes Regarding Lung Cancer Screening and Decision Aids. A Survey and Focus Group Study

Kristina Crothers,Erin K Kross,Lisa M Reisch,Shahida Shahrir,Christopher Slatore,Steven B Zeliadt,Matthew Triplette,Rafael Meza,Joann G Elmore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201604-289OC

Abstract:Rationale: Little is known about vulnerable patients' perceptions and understanding of, and preferences for, lung cancer screening decision aids. Objectives: To determine, in a low-income, racially diverse population, (1) participants' experience, preferences, and reactions to web-based and paper decision aids, and (2) their understanding of harms and benefits of lung cancer screening. Methods: We enrolled outpatients at an urban county hospital in six focus group discussions that included review of a web-based and a paper-based lung-cancer screening decision aid. Participants completed surveys before and after the focus groups. Measurements and main results: Forty-five patients participated (mean age, 61 yr; 76% current smokers; 24% former smokers); 27% had not completed high school; 50% had an annual income not exceeding $15,000; 42% were nonwhite; and 96% reported chronic illness requiring at least three health care visits yearly. Comparing the proportion with correct answers on pre- and postsurveys, participants' understanding of lung cancer screening increased, particularly of the harms of screening including the potential for false positives, extra testing, and complications. However, after conclusion of the focus groups, more than 50% believed that screening lowered the chance of getting lung cancer. Five major themes emerged from qualitative analyses. Participants (1) were not aware of the purpose of lung cancer screening; (2) wanted to know about the benefits and harms; (3) believed physicians need to communicate more effectively; (4) found decision aids helpful and influential for decision-making about screening; and (5) wanted the discussion to be personalized and tailored. Participants expressed surprise that the magnitude of their lung cancer risk and benefits of screening were lower than anticipated. Conclusions: Vulnerable patients find lung cancer screening decision aids helpful and generally show increased knowledge after reviewing decision aids, particularly of harms. Our results can inform future implementation efforts.
Preliminary Testing of A Web-Based Lung Cancer Screening Decision Coaching Tool for Older Chinese American Smokers and Their Providers

Chien-Ching Li,Alicia K Matthews,Xiaojun Gao,Krystal Cheung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2023.01.009

Abstract:Objectives: To examine the acceptability of a culturally targeted lung cancer screening decision aid developed for older Chinese Americans with a smoking history and primary care providers serving this patient population. Methods: Study participants reviewed a web-based decision aid (DA) for lung cancer screening named "Lung Decisions Coaching Tool (LDC-T)." Participants completed a baseline survey and were invited to join an interview. During the interview, participants engaged with the Lung Decisions Coaching Tool and then completed standardized measures of acceptability, usability, and satisfaction. Results: Chinese American smokers (N =22) and Chinese American physicians (N=10) rated the acceptability and usability of a patient version and provider versions of the LDC-T, respectively. Patient version demonstrated high levels of acceptability, usability and satisfaction. Most participants rated the information provided as good or excellent, the amount of tool information was just right, and they thought the tool would be useful for making a screening decision. The tool was well received by participants for ease of use and well-integrated functions. Furthermore, participants indicated they would like to use the tool to help prepare for lung cancer screening shared decision-making with their provider. Similar results were found for the provider version of the LDC-T. Conclusions: Lung cancer screening represents an evidence-based approach to reducing lung cancer morbidity and mortality among chronic high-frequency smokers. Study results suggest the acceptability of a culturally targeted lung cancer screening decision aid for Chinese American smokers and providers. Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of the DA in increasing appropriate levels of screening in this underserved population.
Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Community-Based Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

Lisa Carter-Harris,Robert Skipworth Comer,James E Slaven II,Patrick O Monahan,Emilee Vode,Nasser H Hanna,DuyKhanh Pham Ceppa,Susan M Rawl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.17050

2019-11-15

Abstract: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 RR2-10.2196/resprot.8694
Pursuing Relational Consciousness: Thinking and Antithinking in Group

R. M. Billow

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1521/IJGP.53.4.459.42835

2003-10-01

International Journal of Group Psychotherapy

Abstract:Abstract Although human beings are interpersonal and innately curious, at the same time an aspect of the self defends against mental relationships with self and other, because such relationships threaten to cause psychic pain. Bion’s ideas on thinking and antithinking are applied to this topic of relational consciousness: A “psychotic part of the personality”—which refers also to the “basic assumptions” level of the group—prefers antithinking: forestalling, evading, and assaulting thinking and thinkers. Clinical examples illustrate how the group therapist may address and treat the pervasive resistances to relational consciousness in the group setting. These involve understanding the dynamics and clinical manifestations of hatred of thinking, excessive projective identification, anticipatory anxiety regarding thinking, and bizarre and hallucinatory thought transformations.
A pre-post study testing a lung cancer screening decision aid in primary care

Daniel S. Reuland,Laura Cubillos,Alison T. Brenner,Russell P. Harris,Bailey Minish,Michael P. Pignone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0582-1

IF: 3.298

2018-01-12

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Abstract:BackgroundThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued recommendations for older, heavy lifetime smokers to complete annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans of the chest as screening for lung cancer. The USPSTF recommends and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require shared decision making using a decision aid for lung cancer screening with annual LDCT. Little is known about how decision aids affect screening knowledge, preferences, and behavior. Thus, we tested a lung cancer screening decision aid video in screening-eligible primary care patients.MethodsWe conducted a single-group study with surveys before and after decision aid viewing and medical record review at 3 months. Participants were active patients of a large US academic primary care practice who were current or former smokers, ages 55–80 years, and eligible for screening based on current screening guidelines. Outcomes assessed pre-post decision aid viewing were screening-related knowledge score (9 items about screening-related harms of false positives and overdiagnosis, likelihood of benefit; score range = 0–9) and preference (preferred screening vs. not). Screening behavior measures, assessed via chart review, included provider visits, screening discussion, LDCT ordering, and LDCT completion within 3 months.ResultsAmong 50 participants, knowledge increased from pre- to post-decision aid viewing (mean = 2.6 vs. 5.5, difference = 2.8; 95% CI 2.1, 3.6, p < 0.001). Preferences across the overall sample remained similar such that 54% preferred screening at baseline and 50% after viewing; however, 28% of participants changed their preference (to or away from screening) from baseline to after viewing. We assessed screening behavior for 36 participants who had a primary care visit during the 3-month period following enrollment. Eighteen of 36 preferred screening after decision aid viewing. Of these 18, 10 discussed screening, 8 had a test ordered, and 6 completed LDCT. Among the 18 who preferred no screening, 7 discussed screening, 5 had a test ordered, and 4 completed LDCT.ConclusionsIn primary care patients, a lung cancer screening decision aid improved knowledge regarding screening-related benefits and harms. Screening preferences and behavior were heterogeneous.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov. NCT03077230 (registered retrospectively,November 22, 2016).

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

Lisa Carter-Harris,Robert Skipworth Comer,James E Slaven,Patrick O Monahan,Emilee Vode,Nasser H Hanna,DuyKhanh Pham Ceppa,Susan M Rawl,James E Slaven II

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/17050

IF: 7.076

2020-11-03

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract: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

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making by Persons Who Smoke

Robert J. Volk,Lisa M. Lowenstein,Viola B. Leal,Kamisha H. Escoto,Scott B. Cantor,Reginald F. Munden,Vance A. Rabius,Linda Bailey,Paul M. Cinciripini,Heather Lin,Ashley J. Housten,Pamela Graef Luckett,Angelina Esparza,Myrna C. Godoy,Therese B. Bevers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20362

2020-01-31

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making.Objective: To examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers.Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018.Interventions: Participants were randomized to the PDA video Lung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me? (n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257).Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report.Results: Of 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44; P < .001). Feeling informed about their screening choice was reported by 117 of 234 participants (50.0%) using a PDA compared with 66 of 233 participants (28.3%) using EDU (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.72-3.79; P < .001); 159 of 234 participants (68.0%) using a PDA compared with 110 of 232 (47.4%) participants using EDU reported being clear about their values related to the harms and benefits of screening (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.60-3.51; P < .001). Participants using a PDA were more knowledgeable about lung cancer screening than participants using EDU at each follow-up assessment. Intentions to be screened and screening behaviors did not differ between groups.Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02286713.

medicine, general & internal
Sunbed Use, Attitudes, and Knowledge After the Under-18s Ban

S. Lee,A. Macherianakis,L. Roberts

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2150131913482142

2013-03-22

Journal of Primary Care & Community Health

Abstract:Background: Sunbed use in childhood increases risk of melanoma. The under-18s sunbed ban was introduced in England, April 2011. Impact on use has not been investigated since. This cross-sectional study estimates the prevalence of under-18s’ use in Sandwell after the commercial ban and identifies factors associated with use/intention. Methods: Adolescents aged 15 to 17 years in schools were surveyed using self-completed anonymous questionnaires. Data collected include demographics, sunbed use, tanning attitudes, knowledge of risks and ban awareness. All Sandwell schools were approached; adolescents available on the survey days were included. Results: Five out of 22 schools participated, 407 adolescents responded (95.1%). Twenty participants (5.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.4-8.0) had used sunbeds, of who 16 reported use in commercial settings. After exclusion of one school cohort with atypical use (possibly associated with beauty vocational course and European migrants), the prevalence of use was 1.7% (95% CI = 0.7-3.9, n = 5). Less than half of all were aware of the ban (48.2%; 95% CI = 43.2-53.3). Users/potential users were less aware of associated risks. Being female, having family/friends who use sunbeds increased use/intention 2- to 4-fold. Conclusion: Strategies targeting parents, stricter enforcement, and greater publicity of the ban are needed. Further research exploring the possible association between certain vocational courses, migrants, and sunbed use is required.
Development and Usability Testing of a Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Study Protocol

Lisa Carter-Harris,Robert Skipworth Comer,Anurag Goyal,Emilee Christine Vode,Nasser Hanna,DuyKhanh Ceppa,Susan M Rawl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.8694

2017-11-16

JMIR Research Protocols

Abstract: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.
Tools to Promote Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT Scanning: A Systematic Review

Mayuko Ito Fukunaga,Kyle Halligan,Jennifer Kodela,Shaun Toomey,Vanessa Fiorini Furtado,Roger Luckmann,Paul K J Han,Kathleen M Mazor,Sonal Singh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.05.610

IF: 9.6

Chest

Abstract:Background: Decisions about lung cancer screening are inherently complex and create a need for methods to convey the risks and benefits of screening to patients. Research question: What kind of decision aids or tools are available to support shared decision-making for lung cancer screening? What is the current evidence for the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of those tools? Study design and methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2019 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of tools to promote shared decision-making for patients who are considering lung cancer screening. Results: After screening 2,427 records, we included one randomized control trial, two observational studies, 11 before/after studies of a decision aid or an educational tool. Fifteen distinct tools in various formats were evaluated in 14 studies. Most studies were of fair quality. Studies reported improvement in patients' knowledge of lung cancer screening (n = 9 studies), but improvements in specific areas of knowledge were inconsistent. Decisional conflict was low or reduced after the administration of the tools (n = 7 studies). The acceptability of tools was rated as "high" by patients (n = 7 studies) and physicians (n = 1 study). Low dose CT scan completion rates varied among studies (n = 6 studies). Interpretation: Evidence from 14 studies suggests that some elements of existing tools for lung cancer screening may help to prepare patients for decision-making by improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. Such tools generally are acceptable to patients and providers. Further studies that use consistent measures and reporting methods and assess relevant decisional and clinical outcomes are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and feasibility of implementation of these tools. Clinical trial registration: PROSPERO 2018 CRD4201874814.
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
Patient Perspectives on a Patient‐Facing Tool for Lung Cancer Screening

Victoria L. Tiase,Grace Richards,Teresa Taft,Leticia Stevens,Christian Balbin,Kimberly A. Kaphingst,Angela Fagerlin,Tanner Caverly,Polina Kukhareva,Michael Flynn,Jorie M. Butler,Kensaku Kawamoto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.14143

2024-07-13

Health Expectations

Abstract:Background Individuals with high risk for lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening, but there are associated risks as well as benefits. Shared decision‐making (SDM) tools with personalized information may provide key support for patients. Understanding patient perspectives on educational tools to facilitate SDM for lung cancer screening may support tool development. Aim This study aimed to explore patient perspectives related to a SDM tool for lung cancer screening using a qualitative approach. Methods We elicited patient perspectives by showing a provider‐facing SDM tool. Focus group interviews that ranged in duration from 1.5 to 2 h were conducted with 23 individuals with high risk for lung cancer. Data were interpreted inductively using thematic analysis to identify patients' thoughts on and desires for a patient‐facing SDM tool. Results The findings highlight that patients would like to have educational information related to lung cancer screening. We identified several key themes to be considered in the future development of patient‐facing tools: barriers to acceptance, preference against screening and seeking empowerment. One further theme illustrated effects of patient–provider relationship as a limitation to meeting lung cancer screening information needs. Participants also noted several suggestions for the design of technology decision aids. Conclusion These findings suggest that patients desire additional information on lung cancer screening in advance of clinical visits. However, there are several issues that must be considered in the design and development of technology to meet the information needs of patients for lung cancer screening decisions. Patient or Public Contribution Patients, service users, caregivers or members of the public were not involved in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the data. However, clinical experts in health communication provided detailed feedback on the study protocol, including the focus group approach. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of patient expectations for lung cancer screening decisions and may inform future development of tools for SDM.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Where was NYSDA when E-Prescribing was Passed?

K. Hanley

2016-03-01

Abstract:
Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision-making in Early Adopting Lung Cancer Screening Programs: a Qualitative Study

Renda Soylemez Wiener,Elisa Koppelman,Rendelle Bolton,Karen E. Lasser,Belinda Borrelli,David H. Au,Christopher G. Slatore,Jack A. Clark,Hasmeena Kathuria

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4350-9

IF: 5.7

2018-02-21

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract:ABSTRACTBackgroundGuidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings.ObjectiveTo characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making.DesignQualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups.ParticipantsWe enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net).ApproachUsing content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making.Key ResultsClinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making.ConclusionsDue to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening’s rationale, trade-offs, and process.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
Outcomes of Shared Decision-Making for Low-Dose Screening for Lung Cancer in an Academic Medical Center

Jan M. Eberth,Anja Zgodic,Scott C. Pelland,Stephanie Y. Wang,David P. Miller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-022-02148-w

2022-04-30

Journal of Cancer Education

Abstract:AbstractShared decision-making (SDM) helps patients weigh risks and benefits of screening approaches. Little is known about SDM visits between patients and healthcare providers in the context of lung cancer screening. This study explored the extent that patients were informed by their provider of the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening and expressed certainty about their screening choice. We conducted a survey with 75 patients from an academic medical center in the Southeastern U.S. Survey items included knowledge of benefits and harms of screening, patients’ value elicitation during SDM visits, and decisional certainty. Patient and provider characteristics were collected through electronic medical records or self-report. Descriptive statistics, Kruskal–Wallis tests, and Pearson correlations between screening knowledge, value elicitation, and decisional conflict were calculated. The sample was predominately non-Hispanic White (73.3%) with no more than high school education (53.4%) and referred by their primary care provider for screening (78.7%). Patients reported that providers almost always discussed benefits of screening (81.3%), but infrequently discussed potential harms (44.0%). On average, patients had low knowledge about screening (score = 3.71 out of 8) and benefits/harms. Decisional conflict was low (score = − 3.12) and weakly related to knowledge (R= − 0.25) or value elicitation (R= − 0.27). Black patients experienced higher decisional conflict than White patients (score = − 2.21 vs − 3.44). Despite knowledge scores being generally low, study patients experienced low decisional conflict regarding their decision to undergo lung cancer screening. Additional work is needed to optimize the quality and consistency of information presented to patients considering screening.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health,education, scientific disciplines
Effectiveness Of Smoking Cessation Interventions With Ldct Lung Cancer Screening Among African American Smokers

Tung-Sung Tseng,Yu Hsiang Kao,Mirandy Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igac059.1164

2023-01-19

Innovation in Aging

Abstract:Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can detect lung cancer early and decrease lung cancer-specific mortality for current smokers but remains under-utilized among these populations. Although African-American smokers tend to smoke less and have lower smoking pack-year histories, they have lower quit rates, higher rates of mortality from lung cancer than other racial/ethnic groups. This study examined the effectiveness of a smoking cessation intervention integrating LDCT screening among African-American smokers. This study recruited 60 African-American daily smokers over the age of 55 who qualified for LDCT screening. Participants were randomly and equally assigned into two groups (intervention and control). Overall, the mean age was 61.0 years old (standard deviation, 5.5), 61.7% of the participants were female and, 91.7% had lower incomes (<$20,000). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographics, smoking status, knowledge, attitudes, and stage of change for smoking cessation. The findings showed that participants in the intervention group had a lower number of daily cigarettes smoked (9.5 vs. 11.0) and a higher reduction in the number of daily cigarettes smoked (-2.3 vs. -0.9) than those in the control group. Participants in the intervention group were more likely to be in the preparation stage of the stages of change model (50.0% vs. 40.0%), progress in the stage of change (36.7% vs. 16.7%), or report already having had quit smoking (10.0% vs. 3.3%) than those in the control group. LDCT screening represents a potential "teachable moment" for African-American smokers, which may encourage them to consider these strategies for smoking cessation.
Adherence to annual lung cancer screening with low-dose CT scan in a diverse population

Cherie P Erkmen,Farouk Dako,Ryan Moore,Chandra Dass,Mark G Weiner,Larry R Kaiser,Grace X Ma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-020-01383-0

Abstract:Purpose: Our aim was to develop a novel approach for lung cancer screening among a diverse population that integrates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommended components including shared decision making (SDM), low-dose CT (LDCT), reporting of results in a standardized format, smoking cessation, and arrangement of follow-up care. Methods: Between October of 2015 and March of 2018, we enrolled patients, gathered data on demographics, delivery of SDM, reporting of LDCT results using Lung-RADS, discussion of results, and smoking cessation counseling. We measured adherence to follow-up care, cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, and smoking cessation at 2 years after initial LDCT. Results: We enrolled 505 patients who were 57% African American, 30% Caucasian, 13% Hispanic, < 1% Asian, and 61% were active smokers. All participants participated in SDM, 88.1% used a decision aid, and 96.1% proceeded with LDCT. Of 496 completing LDCT, all received a discussion about results and follow-up recommendations. Overall, 12.9% had Lung-RADS 3 or 4, and 3.2% were diagnosed with lung cancer resulting in a false-positive rate of 10.7%. All 48 patients with positive screens but no cancer diagnosis adhered to follow-up care at 1 year, but only 35.4% adhered to recommended follow-up care at 2 years. The annual follow-up for patients with negative lung cancer screening results (Lung-RADS 1 and 2) was only 23.7% after one year and 2.8% after 2 years. All active smokers received smoking cessation counseling, but only 11% quit smoking. Conclusion: The findings show that an integrated lung cancer screening program can be safely implemented in a diverse population, but adherence to annual screening is poor.
Pilot Study of an Encounter Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening

Mayuko Ito Fukunaga,Akshu Balwan,Jaclyn A. Janis,Caitlin Gutheil,Jason Yahwak,Paul K. J. Han

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01933-9

2021-01-07

Journal of Cancer Education

Abstract:The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has mandated in-person shared decision-making (SDM) counseling with the use of one or more decision aids (DAs) prior to lung cancer screening. We developed a single-page, paper-based, encounter DA (EDA) to be used within a clinician-patient encounter for lung cancer screening and conducted a pre-post pilot intervention study to evaluate its feasibility and effects on patient decisional conflict. Patients referred to a pulmonary practice-based lung cancer screening program were surveyed before and after an SDM visit with a pulmonologist, who used the EDA to counsel the patient. Patient knowledge of the mortality benefit from screening and the frequency of abnormal screening test results was evaluated after the visit, while decisional conflict was measured before and after the visit using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Twenty-three patients participated (mean age = 65.8 years; 43% female; mean smoking history = 57.8 pack-years; 48% currently smoking). Following the visit, 28% of participants correctly understood the mortality benefit of lung cancer screening, while 82% understood the frequency of abnormal screening tests. The mean total DCS score decreased from 35.0 to 0.2 after the visit (p < 0.001). These data suggest that a single-page, paper-based EDA is feasible and potentially effective in reducing decision conflict when used within a SDM visit, although more research is needed to establish the independent effects of the EDA, and future efforts to promote SDM may need to devote greater attention to improving patient understanding of the mortality benefit of screening.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health,education, scientific disciplines
Unpacking the relationship between shared decision-making and decisional quality, decision to screen, and screening completion in lung cancer screening

Lisa Carter-Bawa,James E Slaven,Patrick O Monahan,Susan Brandzel,Hongyuan Gao,Karen J Wernli,Jennifer Elston Lafata,Susan M Rawl,James E. Slaven Jr.,Patrick O. Monahan,Karen J. Wernli,Susan M. Rawl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2024.108143

IF: 3.467

2024-01-19

Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract: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.

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, interdisciplinary
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

Use of Erythropoietin for Cardiovascular Protection

Patients' Attitudes Regarding Lung Cancer Screening and Decision Aids. A Survey and Focus Group Study

Preliminary Testing of A Web-Based Lung Cancer Screening Decision Coaching Tool for Older Chinese American Smokers and Their Providers

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

Pursuing Relational Consciousness: Thinking and Antithinking in Group

A pre-post study testing a lung cancer screening decision aid in primary care

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

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making by Persons Who Smoke

Sunbed Use, Attitudes, and Knowledge After the Under-18s Ban

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

Tools to Promote Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT Scanning: A Systematic Review

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

Patient Perspectives on a Patient‐Facing Tool for Lung Cancer Screening

Where was NYSDA when E-Prescribing was Passed?

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision-making in Early Adopting Lung Cancer Screening Programs: a Qualitative Study

Outcomes of Shared Decision-Making for Low-Dose Screening for Lung Cancer in an Academic Medical Center

Effectiveness Of Smoking Cessation Interventions With Ldct Lung Cancer Screening Among African American Smokers

Adherence to annual lung cancer screening with low-dose CT scan in a diverse population

Pilot Study of an Encounter Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening

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

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