Literature DB >> 19711141

Risk perceptions among participants undergoing lung cancer screening: baseline results from the National Lung Screening Trial.

Elyse R Park1, Jamie S Ostroff, William Rakowski, Ilana F Gareen, Michael A Diefenbach, Sandra Feibelmann, Nancy A Rigotti.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening could present a "teachable moment" for promoting smoking cessation and relapse prevention. Understanding the risk perceptions of older individuals who undergo screening will guide these efforts.
PURPOSE: This paper examines National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants' perceptions of risk for lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases. We investigated (1) whether risk perceptions of lung cancer screening participants differed between current and former smokers and (2) which factors (sociodemographic, smoking and medical history, cognitive, emotional, and knowledge) were associated with these risk perceptions.
METHODS: We analyzed baseline data collected from 630 NLST participants prior to their initial screen. Participants were older (55-74 years), heavy (minimum 30 pack years) current or former smokers. A ten-item risk perception measure was developed to assess perceived lifetime risk of lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases.
RESULTS: The risk perception measure had excellent internal consistency (alpha = 0.93). Former smokers had lower risk perceptions compared to current smokers. Factors independently associated with high risk perceptions among current smokers included having a personal history of a smoking-related disease, higher lifetime maximum number of cigarettes smoked daily, having lived with a smoker, high worry, high perceived severity of lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, and accurate knowledge of tenfold increased risk of lung cancer for a one pack per day smoker. Factors independently associated with high risk perceptions among former smokers included being White, past history of smoking within 30 min of waking, high worry, and accurate knowledge of tenfold increased risk of lung cancer for a one pack per day smoker.
CONCLUSIONS: Using a comprehensive risk perception measurement, we found that current and former smokers held different risk perceptions. Former and current smokers' smoking and medical history, race, emotional concerns, behavior change cognitions, and knowledge should be considered during a prescreening risk communication session. We highlight the theoretical and risk communication implications for former and current smokers undergoing lung cancer screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19711141      PMCID: PMC2831282          DOI: 10.1007/s12160-009-9112-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Behav Med        ISSN: 0883-6612


  69 in total

Review 1.  Cigarette smoking among the elderly: disease consequences and the benefits of cessation.

Authors:  D M Burns
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  2000 Jul-Aug

2.  Exploring the association between perceived risks of smoking and benefits to quitting: who does not see the link?

Authors:  Pauline Lyna; Colleen McBride; Greg Samsa; Kathryn I Pollak
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.913

3.  Screening for lung cancer.

Authors: 
Journal:  Med Lett Drugs Ther       Date:  2001-07-23       Impact factor: 1.909

4.  Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and economic costs--United States, 1995-1999.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2002-04-12       Impact factor: 17.586

5.  Smoking cessation following CT screening for early detection of lung cancer.

Authors:  J S Ostroff; N Buckshee; C A Mancuso; D F Yankelevitz; C I Henschke
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Cancer worries, risk perceptions and associations with interest in DNA testing and clinic satisfaction in a familial colorectal cancer clinic.

Authors:  V Collins; J Halliday; R Warren; R Williamson
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.438

Review 7.  Risk perception and risk communication for cancer screening behaviors: a review.

Authors:  S W Vernon
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1999

8.  Psychological aspects of cancer screening in high-risk populations.

Authors:  K M Kash; M K Dabney
Journal:  Med Pediatr Oncol       Date:  2001-05

9.  Genetic testing for prostate cancer. Willingness and predictors of interest.

Authors:  M A Diefenbach; R A Schnoll; S M Miller; L Brower
Journal:  Cancer Pract       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr

10.  Tobacco use outcomes among patients with lung cancer treated for nicotine dependence.

Authors:  Lisa Sanderson Cox; Christi A Patten; Jon O Ebbert; Amanda A Drews; Gary A Croghan; Matthew M Clark; Troy D Wolter; Paul A Decker; Richard D Hurt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-08-15       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  47 in total

1.  A qualitative study of lung cancer risk perceptions and smoking beliefs among national lung screening trial participants.

Authors:  Elyse R Park; Joanna M Streck; Ilana F Gareen; Jamie S Ostroff; Kelly A Hyland; Nancy A Rigotti; Hannah Pajolek; Mark Nichter
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2013-09-02       Impact factor: 4.244

2.  Biomarker feedback intervention for smoking cessation among Alaska Native pregnant women: Randomized pilot study.

Authors:  Christi A Patten; Kathryn R Koller; Christie A Flanagan; Vanessa Y Hiratsuka; Christine A Hughes; Abbie W Wolfe; Paul A Decker; Kristin Fruth; Tabetha A Brockman; Molly Korpela; Diana Gamez; Carrie Bronars; Neil J Murphy; Dorothy Hatsukami; Neal L Benowitz; Timothy K Thomas
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2018-10-12

Review 3.  Pairing smoking-cessation services with lung cancer screening: A clinical guideline from the Association for the Treatment of Tobacco Use and Dependence and the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.

Authors:  Lisa M Fucito; Sharon Czabafy; Peter S Hendricks; Chris Kotsen; Donna Richardson; Benjamin A Toll
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Behavioral correlates of HPV vaccine acceptability in the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).

Authors:  Carolyn Y Fang; Elliot J Coups; Carolyn J Heckman
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Factor Structure and Stability of Smoking-Related Health Beliefs in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Authors:  Annette R Kaufman; Amber R Koblitz; Alexander Persoskie; Rebecca A Ferrer; William M P Klein; Laura A Dwyer; Elyse R Park
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2015-05-10       Impact factor: 4.244

6.  Racial Differences in Smoking-related Disease Risk Perceptions Among Adults Completing Lung Cancer Screening: Follow-up Results from the ACRIN/NLST Ancillary Study.

Authors:  Giselle K Perez; Ilana F Gareen; JoRean Sicks; Christopher Lathan; Alaina Carr; Pallavi Kumar; Colin Ponzani; Kelly Hyland; Elyse R Park
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2019-02-08

7.  Society of Behavioral Medicine supports implementation of high quality lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.

Authors:  Karriem S Watson; Amanda C Blok; Joanna Buscemi; Yamile Molina; Marian Fitzgibbon; Melissa A Simon; Lance Williams; Kameron Matthews; Jamie L Studts; Sarah E Lillie; Jamie S Ostroff; Lisa Carter-Harris; Robert A Winn
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Effects of patient-provider race concordance and smoking status on lung cancer risk perception accuracy among African-Americans.

Authors:  Susan Persky; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Vincent C Allen; Ibrahim Senay
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2013-06

9.  Overwhelming support among urban Irish COPD patients for lung cancer screening by low-dose CT scan.

Authors:  M Pallin; S Walsh; M F O'Driscoll; C Murray; A Cahalane; L Brown; M Carter; P Mitchell; T J McDonnell; M W Butler
Journal:  Lung       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 2.584

10.  Integrating tobacco treatment into cancer care: Study protocol for a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial.

Authors:  Elyse R Park; Jamie S Ostroff; Giselle K Perez; Kelly A Hyland; Nancy A Rigotti; Sarah Borderud; Susan Regan; Alona Muzikansky; Emily R Friedman; Douglas E Levy; Susan Holland; Justin Eusebio; Lisa Peterson; Julia Rabin; Jacob Miller-Sobel; Irina Gonzalez; Laura Malloy; Maureen O'Brien; Suhana de León-Sanchez; C Will Whitlock
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 2.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.