Sarah E Lillie1, Steven S Fu2, Angela E Fabbrini3, Kathryn L Rice4, Barbara Clothier5, David B Nelson2, Elizabeth A Doro5, M Anas Moughrabieh6, Melissa R Partin2. 1. Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA. Electronic address: sarah.lillie@va.gov. 2. Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA. 3. Division of Pulmonology, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, USA. 4. Division of Pulmonology, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, USA; Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA. 5. Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, USA. 6. Pulmonary and Critical Care, Wayne State University, Detroit, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The National Lung Screening Trial recently reported that annual low-dose computed tomography screening is associated with decreased lung cancer mortality in high-risk smokers. This study sought to identify the factors patients consider important in making lung cancer screening (LCS) decisions, and explore variations by patient characteristics and LCS participation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This observational survey study evaluated the Minneapolis VA LCS Clinical Demonstration Project in which LCS-eligible Veterans (N=1388) were randomized to either Direct LCS Invitation (mailed with decision aid, N=926) or Usual Care (provider referral, N=462). We surveyed participants three months post-randomization (response rate 44%) and report the proportion of respondents rating eight decision-making factors (benefits, harms, and neutral factors) as important by condition, patient characteristics, and LCS completion. RESULTS: Overall, the most important factor was personal risk of lung cancer and the least important factor was health risks from LCS. The reported importance varied by patient characteristics, including smoking status, health status, and education level. Overall, the potential harms of LCS were reported less important than the benefits or the neutral decision-making factors. Exposure to Direct LCS Invitation (with decision aid) increased Veterans' attention to specific decision-making factors; compared to Usual Care respondents, a larger proportion of Direct LCS Invitation respondents rated the chance of false-positive results, LCS knowledge, LCS convenience, and anxiety as important. Those completing LCS considered screening harms less important, with the exception of incidental findings. CONCLUSION: Decision tools influence Veterans' perceptions about LCS decision-making factors. As the factors important to LCS decision making vary by patient characteristics, targeted materials for specific subgroups may be warranted. Attention should be paid to how LCS incidental findings are communicated. Published by Elsevier B.V.
INTRODUCTION: The National Lung Screening Trial recently reported that annual low-dose computed tomography screening is associated with decreased lung cancer mortality in high-risk smokers. This study sought to identify the factors patients consider important in making lung cancer screening (LCS) decisions, and explore variations by patient characteristics and LCS participation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This observational survey study evaluated the Minneapolis VA LCS Clinical Demonstration Project in which LCS-eligible Veterans (N=1388) were randomized to either Direct LCS Invitation (mailed with decision aid, N=926) or Usual Care (provider referral, N=462). We surveyed participants three months post-randomization (response rate 44%) and report the proportion of respondents rating eight decision-making factors (benefits, harms, and neutral factors) as important by condition, patient characteristics, and LCS completion. RESULTS: Overall, the most important factor was personal risk of lung cancer and the least important factor was health risks from LCS. The reported importance varied by patient characteristics, including smoking status, health status, and education level. Overall, the potential harms of LCS were reported less important than the benefits or the neutral decision-making factors. Exposure to Direct LCS Invitation (with decision aid) increased Veterans' attention to specific decision-making factors; compared to Usual Care respondents, a larger proportion of Direct LCS Invitation respondents rated the chance of false-positive results, LCS knowledge, LCS convenience, and anxiety as important. Those completing LCS considered screening harms less important, with the exception of incidental findings. CONCLUSION: Decision tools influence Veterans' perceptions about LCS decision-making factors. As the factors important to LCS decision making vary by patient characteristics, targeted materials for specific subgroups may be warranted. Attention should be paid to how LCS incidental findings are communicated. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Entities:
Keywords:
Attitudes; Decision making; Early detection of cancer; Lung neoplasms
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: Randi M Williams; Kenneth H Beck; James Butler; Sunmin Lee; Min Qi Wang; Kathryn L Taylor; Cheryl L Knott Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 2.037
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: Randi M Williams; Kenneth H Beck; James Butler; Sunmin Lee; Min Qi Wang; Kathryn L Taylor; Cheryl L Knott Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Douglas E Wood; Ella A Kazerooni; Scott L Baum; George A Eapen; David S Ettinger; Lifang Hou; David M Jackman; Donald Klippenstein; Rohit Kumar; Rudy P Lackner; Lorriana E Leard; Inga T Lennes; Ann N C Leung; Samir S Makani; Pierre P Massion; Peter Mazzone; Robert E Merritt; Bryan F Meyers; David E Midthun; Sudhakar Pipavath; Christie Pratt; Chakravarthy Reddy; Mary E Reid; Arnold J Rotter; Peter B Sachs; Matthew B Schabath; Mark L Schiebler; Betty C Tong; William D Travis; Benjamin Wei; Stephen C Yang; Kristina M Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Preston A Greene; George Sayre; Jaimee L Heffner; Deborah E Klein; Paul Krebs; David H Au; Steven B Zeliadt Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 1.771