Kristina Crothers1, Erin K Kross1, Lisa M Reisch1, Shahida Shahrir1, Christopher Slatore2, Steven B Zeliadt3, Matthew Triplette1, Rafael Meza4, Joann G Elmore1. 1. 1 Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 2. 2 Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon; Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, and Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. 3. 3 Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound, and School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; and. 4. 4 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
decision support techniques; early detection of cancer; health care disparities; lung neoplasms; qualitative research
Authors: Nichole T Tanner; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; Chanita Hughes Halbert; Elizabeth Payne; Leonard E Egede; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Lynn T Tanoue; Nichole T Tanner; Michael K Gould; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-01-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Sirisha Jonnalagadda; Cara Bergamo; Jenny J Lin; Linda Lurslurchachai; Michael Diefenbach; Cardinale Smith; Judith E Nelson; Juan P Wisnivesky Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; Jonathan D Clapp; Kathy L Clingan; Ilana F Gareen; David A Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Paul F Pinsky Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-11-22 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Yan Kwan Lau; Tanner J Caverly; Pianpian Cao; Sarah T Cherng; Mindy West; Charles Gaber; Douglas Arenberg; Rafael Meza Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Donald R Sullivan; Sara E Golden; Linda Ganzini; Lissi Hansen; Christopher G Slatore Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 2.871
Authors: Yan Kwan Lau; Tanner J Caverly; Sarah T Cherng; Pianpian Cao; Mindy West; Douglas Arenberg; Rafael Meza Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2014-12-19
Authors: Aaron T Seaman; Kimberly Dukes; Richard M Hoffman; Alan J Christensen; Nicholas Kendell; Andrew L Sussman; Miriam Veléz-Bermúdez; Robert J Volk; Nitin A Pagedar Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2018-04-22
Authors: Mamta Ruparel; Samantha L Quaife; Bhagabati Ghimire; Jennifer L Dickson; Angshu Bhowmik; Neal Navani; David R Baldwin; Stephen Duffy; Jo Waller; Sam M Janes Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2019-06
Authors: Anne C Melzer; Sara E Golden; Sarah S Ono; Santanu Datta; Kristina Crothers; Christopher G Slatore Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: John Monu; Matthew Triplette; Douglas E Wood; Erika M Wolff; Danielle C Lavallee; David R Flum; Farhood Farjah Journal: Chest Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Renda Soylemez Wiener; Elisa Koppelman; Rendelle Bolton; Karen E Lasser; Belinda Borrelli; David H Au; Christopher G Slatore; Jack A Clark; Hasmeena Kathuria Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lori C Sakoda; Melanie A Meyer; Neetu Chawla; Michael A Sanchez; Maruta A Blatchins; Sundeep Nayak; Karen San; Gary K Zin; George Minowada Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Donald R Sullivan; Sara E Golden; Linda Ganzini; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Karen B Eden; Christopher G Slatore Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-11
Authors: Kimberly Dukes; Aaron T Seaman; Richard M Hoffman; Alan J Christensen; Nicholas Kendell; Andrew L Sussman; Miriam Vélez-Bermúdez; Robert J Volk; Nitin A Pagedar Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: Peter J Mazzone; Gerard A Silvestri; Lesley H Souter; Tanner J Caverly; Jeffrey P Kanne; Hormuzd A Katki; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Frank C Detterbeck Journal: Chest Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 9.410