Blocking bad.

S. Scherer

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

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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 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
A multi-level system quality improvement project to reduce disparities in lung cancer screening: The Sylvester Lung Screening Project.

Nicole Ann Gay,Melanhy T Da Silva,Vanessa Patricia Vega,Amber Thomassen,Jessica MacIntyre,Georgette Valls-Delgado,Coral Olazagasti,Estelamari Rodriguez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.6518

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:6518 Background: Racial disparities in lung cancer mortality and screening have been well documented in the USA. Annual screening with low dose Computed Tomography (CT) scans is completed in fewer than 6% of the eligible population. Research suggests that many factors contribute to low screening uptake, including barriers to care at patient, clinician, healthcare system, and community levels. In collaboration with the American Cancer Society, the University of Miami/ Sylvester Cancer Center underwent a multi-level system quality improvement (QI) project with the goal to decrease lung cancer screening disparities and improve guideline concordant lung cancer screening across the health care system. Methods: During the one-year multi-level QI project, interventions were put into place to increase lung cancer screening exams via improvements in EMR- identification of eligible patients, patient navigation and expanded provider education services in primary care clinics. Patient level interventions included a marketing campaign, patient navigation, and interpreters to address language barriers. The Patient-interface of the EMR ‘Health Maintenance Gap’ was optimized to alert eligible patients about screening. In addition, a full-time lung cancer screening navigator provided culturally competent, patient-centered counseling, while allowing for an increased capability to manage a higher volume of patients. Provider level interventions included teaching sessions about lung cancer screening and motivational communication skills, and BPA alerts. The primary outcome was the change in the number of screened patients. Results: With the implementation of these multi-level interventions, there was a twenty five percent improvement in the number of lung cancer screening exams completed during the project period January 2022- December 2022 compared to 2021 baseline, from 20 to 25%. The screening rate was highest among Hispanics (12%), followed by Blacks (8%), and Non- Hispanic Whites (NHW) (6%). The majority of LDCT results were Lung RADS Category 1 or 2 (93%). Conclusions: Multi-level interventions that target patients, clinicians, and the health care system can improve lung cancer screening rates in a short-term period. Developing patient-centered, culturally competent interventions is key to reducing disparities in lung cancer screening. This QI intervention was strengthened by tailoring intervention components to the educational primary care physicians and simplifying the referral process. [Table: see text]

oncology
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
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.
Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Utilization at Two Health Systems in the Southeastern US

Soumy J Niranjan,Desiree Rivers,Rekha Ramachandran,J Edward Murrell,Kayleigh C Curry,Mohammed Mubasher,Eric Flenaugh,Mark T Dransfield,Sejong Bae,Isabel C Scarinci

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.12.24307248

2024-05-13

Abstract:Purpose : Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening is effective for reducing lung cancer mortality. It is critical to understand the lung cancer screening practices for screen-eligible individuals living in Alabama and Georgia where lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. High lung cancer incidence and mortality rates are attributed to high smoking rates among underserved, low income, and rural populations. Therefore, the purpose of this study: (1) to define sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients who were screened for lung cancer at an Academic Medical Center (AMC) in Alabama and a Safety Net Hospital (SNH) in Georgia. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patient electronic health records who received lung cancer screening between 2015 to 2020 was performed to identify the study population and outcome variable measures. Chi-square tests and Student t-tests were used to compare screening uptake across patient demographic and clinical variables. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions determined significant predictors of lung cancer screening uptake. Results: At the AMC, 67,355 were identified as eligible for LCS and 1,129 were screened. In bivariate analyses, there were several differences between those who were screened and those who were not screened. Screening status in the site at Alabama varied significantly by age (P<0.01), race (P<0.001), marital status (P<0.01), smoking status (P<0.01) health insurance (P<0.01), median income (P<0.01), urban status (P<0.01) and distance from UAB (P<0.01). Those who were screened were more likely to have lesser comorbidities (2.31 vs. 2.53; P<0.001). At the SNH, 11,011 individuals were identified as screen-eligible and 500 were screened. In the site at Georgia, screening status varied significantly by race (P<0.01), health insurance (P<0.01), and distance from site (P<0.01). At the AMC, the odds of being screened increased significantly if the individual was a current smoker compared to former smoker (OR=3.21; P<0.01). At the SNH, the odds of being screened for lung cancer increased significantly with every unit increase in co-morbidity count (OR = 1.12; P=0.01) Conclusion: The study provides evidence that LCS has not reached all subgroups and that additional targeted efforts are needed to increase lung cancer screening uptake. Furthermore disparity was noticed between adults living closer to screening institutions and those who lived farther.
Different tobacco retrotransposons are specifically modulated by the elicitor cryptogein and reactive oxygen species.

Iulia-Andra Anca,J. Fromentin,Q. Bui,C. Mhiri,M. Grandbastien,F. Simon-Plas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2014.07.003

IF: 3.686

2014-10-15

Journal of Plant Physiology

Abstract:
Comparing Smoking Cessation Interventions among Underserved Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic Trial Protocol

Rachel Kohn,Anil Vachani,Dylan Small,Alisa J Stephens-Shields,Dorothy Sheu,Vanessa L Madden,Brian A Bayes,Marzana Chowdhury,Sadie Friday,Jannie Kim,Michael K Gould,Mohamed H Ismail,Beth Creekmur,Matthew A Facktor,Charlotte Collins,Kristina K Blessing,Christine M Neslund-Dudas,Michael J Simoff,Elizabeth R Alleman,Leonard H Epstein,Michael A Horst,Michael E Scott,Kevin G Volpp,Scott D Halpern,Joanna L Hart,Stakeholder Advisory Committee,Andrea Ferris,George Fernandez,Amanda Holm,Sarah Evers-Casey,Benjamin Broder,Curt Hammock,Karen Yacobucci,M Regina Clanton,Ryan Coffman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202104-499SD

Abstract:Smoking burdens are greatest among underserved patients. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces mortality among individuals at risk for smoking-associated lung cancer. Although LCS programs must offer smoking cessation support, the interventions that best promote cessation among underserved patients in this setting are unknown. This stakeholder-engaged, pragmatic randomized clinical trial will compare the effectiveness of four interventions promoting smoking cessation among underserved patients referred for LCS. By using an additive study design, all four arms provide standard "ask-advise-refer" care. Arm 2 adds free or subsidized pharmacologic cessation aids, arm 3 adds financial incentives up to $600 for cessation, and arm 4 adds a mobile device-delivered episodic future thinking tool to promote attention to long-term health goals. We hypothesize that smoking abstinence rates will be higher with the addition of each intervention when compared with arm 1. We will enroll 3,200 adults with LCS orders at four U.S. health systems. Eligible patients include those who smoke at least one cigarette daily and self-identify as a member of an underserved group (i.e., is Black or Latinx, is a rural resident, completed a high school education or less, and/or has a household income <200% of the federal poverty line). The primary outcome is biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence sustained through 6 months. Secondary outcomes include abstinence sustained through 12 months, other smoking-related clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. This pragmatic randomized clinical trial will identify the most effective smoking cessation strategies that LCS programs can implement to reduce smoking burdens affecting underserved populations. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04798664). Date of registration: March 12, 2021. Date of trial launch: May 17, 2021.
Serum-gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase (gamma-GT) and aspartate-aminotransferase (AspAT) activities in adult cattle with chronic Fasciola hepatica infection.

M. Simesen,P. Nansen

Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica

Abstract:
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
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.
Practice, clinician, and patient factors associated with the adoption of lung cancer screening

Camille J Hochheimer,Roy T Sabo,Sebastian T Tong,Matthew Westfall,Susan E Wolver,Stacie Carney,Teresa Day,Alex H Krist

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141320937326

2020-06-30

Journal of Medical Screening

Abstract:Objectives Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography in adults meeting certain criteria. This study seeks to assess lung cancer screening uptake in three health systems. Setting This study was part of a randomized controlled trial to engage underserved populations in preventive care and includes 45 primary care practices in eight states. Methods Practice and clinician characteristics were manually collected. Lung cancer was measured from electronic health record data. A generalized linear mixed model was used to assess characteristics associated with screening. Results Patient records between 2012 and 2016 were examined. Lung cancer screening uptake overall increased only slightly after the guideline change (2.8–5.6%, p < 0.01). One health system did not show an increase in uptake (0.2–0.1%, p = 0.32), another had a clinically insignificant increase (1.5–2.9%, p < 0.01), and the third nearly doubled its higher baseline screening rate (10.4–19.1%, p < 0.01). Within the third health system, patients more likely to be screened were older, male, had more comorbid conditions, visited the office more frequently, were seen in practices closer to the screening clinic, or were uninsured or covered by Medicare or Medicaid. Conclusions Certain patients appeared more likely to be screened. The only health system with increased lung cancer screening explicitly promoted screening rather than relying on clinicians to implement the new guideline. Systems approaches may help increase the low uptake of lung cancer screening.

public, environmental & occupational health
Community Collaboration to Advance Racial/Ethnic Equity in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Protocol for a Multilevel Intervention to Improve Screening and Follow-up in Community Health Centers

Folasade P May,Suzanne Brodney,Jessica J Tuan,Sapna Syngal,Andrew T Chan,Beth Glenn,Gina Johnson,Yuchiao Chang,David A Drew,Beverly Moy,Nicolette J Rodriguez,Erica T Warner,Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa,Chinedu Ukaegbu,Anjelica Q Davis,Kimberly Schoolcraft,Susan Regan,Nathan Yoguez,Samantha Kuney,Kelley Le Beaux,Catherine Jeffries,Ellen T Lee,Roopa Bhat,Jennifer S Haas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2024.107639

Abstract:Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization is low among low-income, uninsured, and minority populations that receive care in community health centers (CHCs). There is a need for evidence-based interventions to increase screening and follow-up care in these settings. Methods: A multilevel, multi-component pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial is being conducted at 8 CHCs in two metropolitan areas (Boston and Los Angeles), with two arms: (1) Mailed FIT outreach with text reminders, and (2) Mailed FIT-DNA with patient support. We also include an additional CHC in Rapid City (South Dakota) that follows a parallel protocol for FIT-DNA but is not randomized due to lack of a comparison group. Eligible individuals in participating clinics are primary care patients ages 45-75, at average-risk for CRC, and overdue for CRC screening. Participants with abnormal screening results are offered navigation for follow-up colonoscopy and CRC risk assessment. Results: The primary outcome is the completion rate of CRC screening at 90 days. Secondary outcomes include the screening completion rate at 180 days and the rate of colonoscopy completion within 6 months among participants with an abnormal result. Additional goals are to enhance our understanding of facilitators and barriers to CRC risk assessment in CHC settings. Conclusions: This study assesses the effectiveness of two multilevel interventions to increase screening participation and follow-up after abnormal screening in under-resourced clinical settings, informing future efforts to address CRC disparities. Trial registration: NCT05714644.
A pragmatic randomized clinical trial of multilevel interventions to improve adherence to lung cancer screening (The Larch Study): Study protocol

Casey Luce,Lorella Palazzo,Melissa L Anderson,Lisa Carter-Bawa,Hongyuan Gao,Beverly B Green,James D Ralston,Kristine Rogers,Yu-Ru Su,Leah Tuzzio,Matthew Triplette,Karen J Wernli,Melissa L. Anderson,Beverly B. Green,James D. Ralston,Karen J. Wernli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2024.107495

IF: 2.261

2024-05-01

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Abstract:BACKGROUND: In real-world settings, low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) diminishes population-level benefits of reducing lung cancer mortality. We describe the Larch Study protocol, which tests the effectiveness of two patient-centered interventions (Patient Voices Video and Stepped Reminders) designed to address barriers and improve annual LCS adherence.METHODS: The Larch Study is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted within Kaiser Permanente Washington. Eligible patients (target n = 1606) are aged 50-78 years with an index low-dose CT (LDCT) of the chest with negative or benign findings. With a 2 × 2 factorial-design, patients are individually randomized to 1 of 4 arms: video only, reminders only, both video and reminders, or usual care. The Patient Voices video addresses patient education needs by normalizing LCS, reminding patients when LCS is due, and encouraging social support. Stepped Reminders prompts primary care physicians to order patient's repeat screening LDCT and patients to schedule their scan. Intervention delivery is embedded within routine healthcare, facilitated by shared electronic health record components. Primary outcome is adherence to national LCS clinical guidelines, defined as repeat LDCT within 9-15 months. Patient-reported outcomes are measured via survey (knowledge of LCS, perception of stigma) approximately 8 weeks after index LDCT. Our mixed-methods formative evaluation includes process data, collected during the trial, and interviews with trial participants and stakeholders.DISCUSSION: Results will fill an important scientific gap on multilevel interventions to increase annual LCS adherence and provide opportunities for spread and scale to other healthcare settings.REGISTRATION: Trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05747443).

pharmacology & pharmacy,medicine, research & experimental
Bilateral electricity market theory based on conjectural variations equilibria

A. Alikhanzadeh,M. Irving

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/EEM.2011.5952989

2011-05-25

Abstract:The growth of electricity markets and evolution of electricity utility systems around the world towards a competitive environment have aroused considerable interest in the investigation of mechanisms for trading electricity, especially in such an environment that participants compete in both spot market bidding and bilateral contract trading. Equilibrium models using a Conjectural Variation (CV) approach to optimize the participants' behaviors in oligopolistic and oligopsonistic market frameworks have been represented. CV will provide the constituents of an electricity market with an expectation of how their rivals will react to their behavior changes. This paper reviews the bilateral electricity market structure, such as the UK electricity market (BETTA), analyses the conjectural equilibrium formula for both generation side and demand side markets. The paper shows how the generators and suppliers can self-dispatch and manage their contracts to meet demand in a double-sided market to reach equilibrium using a hierarchical optimization method.
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.
Risk-based lung cancer screening performance in a universal healthcare setting

Martin C. Tammemägi,Gail E. Darling,Heidi Schmidt,Meghan J. Walker,Deanna Langer,Yvonne W. Leung,Kathy Nguyen,Beth Miller,Diego Llovet,William K. Evans,Daniel N. Buchanan,Gabriela Espino-Hernandez,Usman Aslam,Amanda Sheppard,Aisha Lofters,Micheal McInnis,Julian Dobranowski,Steven Habbous,Christian Finley,Marianne Luettschwager,Erin Cameron,Caroline Bravo,Anna Banaszewska,Katherin Creighton-Taylor,Brenda Fernandes,Julia Gao,Alex Lee,Van Lee,Bogdan Pylypenko,Monica Yu,Erin Svara,Shivali Kaushal,Lynda MacNiven,Caitlin McGarry,Lauren Della Mora,Liz Koen,Jessica Moffatt,Michelle Rey,Marta Yurcan,Laurie Bourne,Gillian Bromfield,Melissa Coulson,Rebecca Truscott,Linda Rabeneck

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02904-z

IF: 82.9

2024-04-20

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Globally, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Previous trials demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening of high-risk individuals can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% or more. Lung cancer screening has been approved by major guidelines in the United States, and over 4,000 sites offer screening. Adoption of lung screening outside the United States has, until recently, been slow. Between June 2017 and May 2019, the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot successfully recruited 7,768 individuals at high risk identified by using the PLCOm2012noRace lung cancer risk prediction model. In total, 4,451 participants were successfully screened, retained and provided with high-quality follow-up, including appropriate treatment. In the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot, the lung cancer detection rate and the proportion of early-stage cancers were 2.4% and 79.2%, respectively; serious harms were infrequent; and sensitivity to detect lung cancers was 95.3% or more. With abnormal scans defined as ones leading to diagnostic investigation, specificity was 95.5% (positive predictive value, 35.1%), and adherence to annual recall and early surveillance scans and clinical investigations were high (>85%). The Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot provides insights into how a risk-based organized lung screening program can be implemented in a large, diverse, populous geographic area within a universal healthcare system.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
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
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
Abstract A116: Evaluating medical mistrust in efforts to promote equity in lung cancer screening implementation

Jennifer Richmond,Jessica R. Fernandez,Kemberlee R. Bonnet,Maria A. Pena,Allana T. Forde,David G. Schlundt,Consuelo H. Wilkins,Melinda C. Aldrich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp22-a116

2023-01-10

Abstract:Purpose: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. Lung cancer screening significantly reduces lung cancer mortality, but national uptake is low (<6%). Black and low-income Americans have higher lung cancer mortality rates and lower lung cancer screening rates than White and high-income Americans, respectively. Lower lung cancer screening uptake among Black and low-income populations may widen existing disparities in lung cancer mortality. Prior studies have found higher levels of medical mistrust among Black and low-income populations, perhaps arising from structural racism and other inequities. Indeed, medical mistrust may reduce cancer screening intentions, but little is known about how health systems can promote lung screening uptake while earning patient trust. To address this gap, this study aimed to identify diverse patient perspectives on increasing equity in lung screening uptake and addressing medical mistrust. Methods: We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews and four focus groups (about four participants per group) with a diverse sample of lung cancer screening-eligible individuals throughout the U.S. (i.e., individuals aged 50-80 years with eligible smoking histories). Interviews and focus groups investigated participant awareness of lung screening, barriers to screening, the role of medical mistrust in screening uptake, and perspectives on equitable screening implementation. We used an iterative inductive/deductive content analysis approach to identify key themes from interview and focus group transcripts. Results: Interview participants (n=20) were 60 years of age on average and had a mean smoking pack-year history of 42.5 years. Half of interview participants identified as Black (50%), slightly more than half of participants had a household income of <$30,000 (55%), and most participants were female (60%). Focus group participants had similar demographics. Most participants were unaware of lung cancer screening but were eager to learn more. As a key barrier, participants discussed that their doctors had never mentioned lung screening, which confused and frustrated participants who had long-term relationships with primary care doctors. Prior negative healthcare experiences (e.g., misdiagnoses and having serious symptoms dismissed by healthcare providers) were also discussed as screening barriers as they engendered mistrust and hesitancy to seek future care. Several Black participants cited personal and vicarious experiences of racism in the healthcare system as key barriers contributing to mistrust and screening hesitancy. Lastly, participants raised several suggestions to promote equitable screening implementation, such as the need to meaningfully engage with communities to raise screening awareness and address cost issues. Conclusions: Lung cancer screening interventions may be more successful if concerted efforts are taken to understand and address medical mistrust. Future work is needed to address the reasons patients may mistrust healthcare providers and systems that deliver lung cancer screening. Citation Format: Jennifer Richmond, Jessica R. Fernandez, Kemberlee R. Bonnet, Maria A. Pena, Allana T. Forde, David G. Schlundt, Consuelo H. Wilkins, Melinda C. Aldrich. Evaluating medical mistrust in efforts to promote equity in lung cancer screening implementation [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 A116.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health

Blocking bad.

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

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

A multi-level system quality improvement project to reduce disparities in lung cancer screening: The Sylvester Lung Screening Project.

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.

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

Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Utilization at Two Health Systems in the Southeastern US

Different tobacco retrotransposons are specifically modulated by the elicitor cryptogein and reactive oxygen species.

Comparing Smoking Cessation Interventions among Underserved Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic Trial Protocol

Serum-gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase (gamma-GT) and aspartate-aminotransferase (AspAT) activities in adult cattle with chronic Fasciola hepatica infection.

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

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

Practice, clinician, and patient factors associated with the adoption of lung cancer screening

Community Collaboration to Advance Racial/Ethnic Equity in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Protocol for a Multilevel Intervention to Improve Screening and Follow-up in Community Health Centers

A pragmatic randomized clinical trial of multilevel interventions to improve adherence to lung cancer screening (The Larch Study): Study protocol

Bilateral electricity market theory based on conjectural variations equilibria

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

Risk-based lung cancer screening performance in a universal healthcare setting

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

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

Abstract A116: Evaluating medical mistrust in efforts to promote equity in lung cancer screening implementation