Literature DB >> 27966194

Responsiveness of a Brief Measure of Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge.

Ashley J Housten1, Lisa M Lowenstein1, Viola B Leal1, Robert J Volk2.   

Abstract

Our aim was to examine the responsiveness of a lung cancer screening brief knowledge measure (LCS-12). Eligible participants were aged 55-80 years, current smokers or had quit within 15 years, and English speaking. They completed a baseline pretest survey, viewed a lung cancer screening video-based patient decision aid, and then filled out a follow-up posttest survey. We performed a paired samples t-test, calculated effect size, and calculated absolute and relative percent improvement for each item. Participants (n = 30) were primarily White (63%) with less than a college degree (63%), and half were female (50%). Mean age was 61.5 years (standard deviation [SD] = 4.67) and average smoking history was 30.4 pack-years (range = 4.6-90.0). Mean score on the 12-item measure increased from 47.3% correct on the pretest to 80.3% correct on the posttest (mean pretest score = 5.67 vs. mean posttest score = 9.63; mean score difference = 3.97, SD = 2.87, 95% CI = 2.90, 5.04). Total knowledge scores improved significantly and were responsive to the decision aid intervention (paired samples t-test = 7.57, p < .001; Cohen's effect size = 1.59; standard response mean [SRM] = 1.38). All individual items were responsive, yet two items had lower absolute responsiveness than the others (item 8: "Without screening, is lung cancer often found at a later stage when cure is less likely?" pretest correct = 83.3% vs. posttest = 96.7%, responsiveness = 13.4%; and item 10: "Can a CT scan find lung disease that is not cancer?" pretest correct = 80.0% vs. posttest = 93.3%, responsiveness = 13.3%). The LCS-12 knowledge measure may be a useful outcome measure of shared decision making for lung cancer screening.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Knowledge measure; Lung cancer screening; Shared decision making; Smoking

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 27966194      PMCID: PMC5471134          DOI: 10.1007/s13187-016-1153-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Educ        ISSN: 0885-8195            Impact factor:   2.037


  23 in total

Review 1.  Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.

Authors:  J A Husted; R J Cook; V T Farewell; D D Gladman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Developing instruments to measure the quality of decisions: early results for a set of symptom-driven decisions.

Authors:  Karen R Sepucha; Carrie A Levin; Ekeoma E Uzogara; Michael J Barry; Annette M O'Connor; Albert G Mulley
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-08-20

3.  SF 36 health survey questionnaire: II. Responsiveness to changes in health status in four common clinical conditions.

Authors:  A M Garratt; D A Ruta; M I Abdalla; I T Russell
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1994-12

4.  Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments.

Authors:  G Guyatt; S Walter; G Norman
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

5.  Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process.

Authors:  Glyn Elwyn; Annette O'Connor; Dawn Stacey; Robert Volk; Adrian Edwards; Angela Coulter; Richard Thomson; Alexandra Barratt; Michael Barry; Steven Bernstein; Phyllis Butow; Aileen Clarke; Vikki Entwistle; Deb Feldman-Stewart; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Nora Moumjid; Al Mulley; Cornelia Ruland; Karen Sepucha; Alan Sykes; Tim Whelan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-08-14

6.  Cancer statistics, 2016.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  A comparison of the sensitivity to change of several health status instruments in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  R Fitzpatrick; S Ziebland; C Jenkinson; A Mowat; A Mowat
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 4.666

Review 8.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

Authors:  Dawn Stacey; France Légaré; Nananda F Col; Carol L Bennett; Michael J Barry; Karen B Eden; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Anne Lyddiatt; Richard Thomson; Lyndal Trevena; Julie H C Wu
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-01-28

9.  Should CMS cover lung cancer screening for the fully informed patient?

Authors:  Robert J Volk; Ernest Hawk; Therese B Bevers
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  6 in total

1.  Tools to Promote Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT Scanning: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mayuko Ito Fukunaga; Kyle Halligan; Jennifer Kodela; Shaun Toomey; Vanessa Fiorini Furtado; Roger Luckmann; Paul K J Han; Kathleen M Mazor; Sonal Singh
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  Implementing Decision Coaching for Lung Cancer Screening in the Low-Dose Computed Tomography Setting.

Authors:  Lisa M Lowenstein; Myrna Cobos Barco Godoy; Jeremy J Erasmus; Zineb Zirari; Alina Bennett; Viola B Leal; Ashley J Housten; Robert J Volk
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2020-03-24

3.  Effect of Incidental Findings Information on Lung Cancer Screening Intent: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Stephen D Clark; Daniel S Reuland; Alison T Brenner; Daniel E Jonas
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 6.473

4.  Using a Patient Decision Aid Video to Assess Current and Former Smokers' Values About the Harms and Benefits of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Aubri S Hoffman; Andrea P Hempstead; Ashley J Housten; Vincent F Richards; Lisa M Lowenstein; Viola B Leal; Robert J Volk
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2018-04-19

5.  Knowledge and attitudes towards low dose computed tomography lung cancer screening and smoking among African Americans-a mixed method study.

Authors:  Tung-Sung Tseng; Tyra Gross; Michael D Celestin; Wendy Dang; Lucretia Young; Yu-Hsiang Kao; Mirandy Li; David L Smith; Leonard R Bok; Jyotsna Fuloria; Sarah Moody-Thomas
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 1.241

Review 6.  Promoting lung cancer awareness, help-seeking and early detection: a systematic review of interventions.

Authors:  Mohamad M Saab; Serena FitzGerald; Brendan Noonan; Caroline Kilty; Abigail Collins; Áine Lyng; Una Kennedy; Maidy O'Brien; Josephine Hegarty
Journal:  Health Promot Int       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 2.483

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.