Literature DB >> 26214612

Attitudes and Perceptions About Smoking Cessation in the Context of Lung Cancer Screening.

Steven B Zeliadt1, Jaimee L Heffner2, George Sayre1, Deborah E Klein3, Carol Simons4, Jennifer Williams4, Lynn F Reinke5, David H Au5.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Broad adoption of lung cancer screening may inadvertently lead to negative population health outcomes if it is perceived as a substitute for smoking cessation.
OBJECTIVE: To understand views on smoking cessation from current smokers in the context of being offered lung cancer screening as a routine service in primary care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: As an ancillary study to the launch of a lung cancer screening program at 7 sites in the Veterans Health Administration, 45 in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews about health beliefs related to smoking and lung cancer screening were administered from May 29 to September 22, 2014, by telephone to 37 current smokers offered lung cancer screening by their primary care physician. Analysis was conducted from June 15, 2014, to March 29, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Attitudes and perceptions about the importance of smoking cessation in the context of lung cancer screening.
RESULTS: Lung cancer screening prompted most current smokers to reflect for the first time on what smoking means for their current and future health. However, 17 of 35 (49%) participants described mechanisms whereby screening lowered their motivation for cessation, including the perception that undergoing an imaging test yields the same health benefits as smoking cessation. Other misperceptions include the belief that everyone who participates in screening will benefit; the belief that screening and being able to return for additional screening offers protection from lung cancer; the perception by some individuals that findings from screenings have saved their lives by catching their cancer early when indeterminate findings are identified that can be monitored rather than immediately treated; and a reinforced belief in some individuals that a cancer-free screening test result indicates that they are among the lucky ones who will avoid the harms of smoking. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this qualitative, lung cancer screening prompted many current smokers to reflect on their health and may serve as a potential opportunity to engage patients in discussions about smoking cessation. However, several concerning pathways were identified in which screening, when offered as part of routine care and described as having proven efficacy, may negatively influence smoking cessation. Health care professionals should be aware that the opportunity for early detection of lung cancer may be interpreted as a way of avoiding the harms of smoking. To promote cessation, discussions should focus on the emotional response to screening rather than clinical details (eg, nodule size) and address misperceptions about the value of early detection so that screening does not lower motivation to quit smoking.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26214612     DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3558

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  41 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Tobacco Dependence Predicts Higher Lung Cancer and Mortality Rates and Lower Rates of Smoking Cessation in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Authors:  Alana M Rojewski; Nichole T Tanner; Lin Dai; James G Ravenel; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; Gerard A Silvestri; Benjamin A Toll
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 9.410

3.  Qualitative Research in Clinical Epidemiology.

Authors:  Stephanie Thompson; Kara Schick-Makaroff
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

4.  COPD Overdiagnosis, Underdiagnosis, and Treatment.

Authors:  Cristine E Berry; Barbara P Yawn
Journal:  Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis       Date:  2016-01-15

5.  Study protocol for a telephone-based smoking cessation randomized controlled trial in the lung cancer screening setting: The lung screening, tobacco, and health trial.

Authors:  Kathryn L Taylor; Danielle E Deros; Shelby Fallon; Jennifer Stephens; Emily Kim; Tania Lobo; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Jinani Jayasekera; Rafael Meza; Cassandra A Stanton; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Brady McKee; Judith Howell; Michael Ramsaier; Juan Batlle; Ellen Dornelas; Vicky Parikh; Eric Anderson
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Patient-Physician Discussions on Lung Cancer Screening: A Missed Teachable Moment to Promote Smoking Cessation.

Authors:  Hasmeena Kathuria; Elisa Koppelman; Belinda Borrelli; Christopher G Slatore; Jack A Clark; Karen E Lasser; Renda Soylemez Wiener
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 4.244

Review 7.  The importance of incorporating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Jennifer Anne Minnix; Maher Karam-Hage; Janice A Blalock; Paul M Cinciripini
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-06

8.  A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Lisa Carter-Harris; Susan Brandzel; Karen J Wernli; Joshua A Roth; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 2.267

9.  Perceptions and Utilization of Lung Cancer Screening Among Primary Care Physicians.

Authors:  Dan J Raz; Geena X Wu; Martin Consunji; Rebecca Nelson; Canlan Sun; Loretta Erhunmwunsee; Betty Ferrell; Virginia Sun; Jae Y Kim
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 15.609

10.  Shared Medical Decision Making in Lung Cancer Screening: Experienced versus Descriptive Risk Formats.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; Ellen Peters; Shea Tyra; David Oelberg
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.