Marilyn M Schapira1,2, Charu Aggarwal3, Scott Akers4,5, Jaya Aysola1, Diana Imbert1, Corey Langer3, Charlie B Simone6, Emily Strittmatter1, Anil Vachani7,5, Liana Fraenkel8,9. 1. 1 Division of General Internal Medicine. 2. 2 Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion. 3. 3 Division of Hematology and Oncology, and. 4. 5 Department of Radiology, and. 5. 4 Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. 6 Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. 7 Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, and. 8. 8 Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut; and. 9. 9 Department of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Radiographic lung cancer screening guidelines and coverage requirements warrant a shared decision-making process. Guidance is needed regarding how to conduct shared decision making effectively. A useful organizing theme should include consideration of a patient's response to and tolerance of uncertainty associated with lung cancer screening. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to: (1) describe how patients respond to specific categories of uncertainty in the context of lung cancer screening, and (2) inform strategies for addressing concerns about uncertainty as part of the shared decision making. METHODS: We performed two series of structured interviews on participants in a convenience sample of current or former cigarette smokers recruited from primary care and pulmonary practices in Philadelphia. An interview guide included prompts related to benefits, harms, and responses to general and specific types of uncertainty (stochastic, statistical, and evidentiary) associated with lung cancer screening. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and independently coded by two investigators. An inductive analysis was conducted, and major themes were identified. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two adults participated in the study. Sixty-eight percent were men, 72% were black or African American, and 50% met U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria for lung cancer screening. The primary themes to emerge from our study were: (1) the desire to decrease uncertainty may motivate lung cancer screening decisions; (2) uncertainty is an attribute of health states that impacts how patients weigh benefits and harms of lung cancer screening; (3) patient understanding and tolerance of uncertainty varies across stochastic, statistical, and evidentiary uncertainty; and (4) provider-patient communication may mitigate intolerance of uncertainty in the context of lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic approach to understanding and addressing patients' concerns about uncertainty in the context of lung cancer screening can guide a patient-centered approach to shared decision making. The results of this study can inform provider-patient communication strategies regarding the decision to perform radiographic lung cancer screening.
RATIONALE: Radiographic lung cancer screening guidelines and coverage requirements warrant a shared decision-making process. Guidance is needed regarding how to conduct shared decision making effectively. A useful organizing theme should include consideration of a patient's response to and tolerance of uncertainty associated with lung cancer screening. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to: (1) describe how patients respond to specific categories of uncertainty in the context of lung cancer screening, and (2) inform strategies for addressing concerns about uncertainty as part of the shared decision making. METHODS: We performed two series of structured interviews on participants in a convenience sample of current or former cigarette smokers recruited from primary care and pulmonary practices in Philadelphia. An interview guide included prompts related to benefits, harms, and responses to general and specific types of uncertainty (stochastic, statistical, and evidentiary) associated with lung cancer screening. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and independently coded by two investigators. An inductive analysis was conducted, and major themes were identified. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two adults participated in the study. Sixty-eight percent were men, 72% were black or African American, and 50% met U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria for lung cancer screening. The primary themes to emerge from our study were: (1) the desire to decrease uncertainty may motivate lung cancer screening decisions; (2) uncertainty is an attribute of health states that impacts how patients weigh benefits and harms of lung cancer screening; (3) patient understanding and tolerance of uncertainty varies across stochastic, statistical, and evidentiary uncertainty; and (4) provider-patient communication may mitigate intolerance of uncertainty in the context of lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic approach to understanding and addressing patients' concerns about uncertainty in the context of lung cancer screening can guide a patient-centered approach to shared decision making. The results of this study can inform provider-patient communication strategies regarding the decision to perform radiographic lung cancer screening.
Entities:
Keywords:
ambiguity; communication; decision making; lung cancer screening; uncertainty
Authors: Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Tom Lehman; Bill Killam; Holly Massett; Andrew N Freedman Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010-07-29 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Renda Soylemez Wiener; Michael K Gould; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Jack A Clark Journal: Health Expect Date: 2012-12-16 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Daniella A Zipkin; Craig A Umscheid; Nancy L Keating; Elizabeth Allen; KoKo Aung; Rebecca Beyth; Scott Kaatz; Devin M Mann; Jeremy B Sussman; Deborah Korenstein; Connie Schardt; Avishek Nagi; Richard Sloane; David A Feldstein Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Michael D Brundage; Katherine C Smith; Emily A Little; Elissa T Bantug; Claire F Snyder Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: William M P Klein; Rebecca A Ferrer; Kaitlin A Graff; Annette R Kaufman; Paul K J Han Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Linda L Humphrey; Mark Deffebach; Miranda Pappas; Christina Baumann; Kathryn Artis; Jennifer Priest Mitchell; Bernadette Zakher; Rongwei Fu; Christopher G Slatore Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 25.391
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: 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: Kristina Demas Woodhouse; Katie Tremont; Anil Vachani; Marilyn M Schapira; Neha Vapiwala; Charles B Simone; Abigail T Berman Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.037
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: Gary E Weissman; Kuldeep N Yadav; Vanessa Madden; Katherine R Courtright; Joanna L Hart; David A Asch; Marilyn M Schapira; Scott D Halpern Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Gary E Weissman; Kuldeep N Yadav; Trishya Srinivasan; Stephanie Szymanski; Florylene Capulong; Vanessa Madden; Katherine R Courtright; Joanna L Hart; David A Asch; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Marilyn M Schapira; Scott D Halpern Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 2.583