Renda Soylemez Wiener1,2, Elisa Koppelman3,4, Rendelle Bolton3,5, Karen E Lasser4,6, Belinda Borrelli7, David H Au8,9, Christopher G Slatore10,11, Jack A Clark3,4, Hasmeena Kathuria12. 1. Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, ENRM VA Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA. renda.wiener@va.gov. 2. The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. renda.wiener@va.gov. 3. Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, ENRM VA Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA. 4. Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 5. The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA. 6. Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA. 9. Division of Pulmonary Critical Care Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 10. Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA. 11. Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 12. The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making. DESIGN: Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). APPROACH: Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. KEY RESULTS: Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making. DESIGN: Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). APPROACH: Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. KEY RESULTS: Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.
Entities:
Keywords:
lung cancer screening; patient-clinician communication; shared decision-making
Authors: Dawn Stacey; France Légaré; Krystina Lewis; Michael J Barry; Carol L Bennett; Karen B Eden; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Anne Lyddiatt; Richard Thomson; Lyndal Trevena Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-12
Authors: Douglas E Wood; Ella Kazerooni; Scott L Baum; Mark T Dransfield; George A Eapen; David S Ettinger; Lifang Hou; David M Jackman; Donald Klippenstein; Rohit Kumar; Rudy P Lackner; Lorriana E Leard; Ann N C Leung; Samir S Makani; Pierre P Massion; Bryan F Meyers; Gregory A Otterson; Kimberly Peairs; Sudhakar Pipavath; Christie Pratt-Pozo; Chakravarthy Reddy; Mary E Reid; Arnold J Rotter; Peter B Sachs; Matthew B Schabath; Lecia V Sequist; Betty C Tong; William D Travis; Stephen C Yang; Kristina M Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Linda S Kinsinger; Charles Anderson; Jane Kim; Martha Larson; Stephanie H Chan; Heather A King; Kathryn L Rice; Christopher G Slatore; Nichole T Tanner; Kathleen Pittman; Robert J Monte; Rebecca B McNeil; Janet M Grubber; Michael J Kelley; Dawn Provenzale; Santanu K Datta; Nina S Sperber; Lottie K Barnes; David H Abbott; Kellie J Sims; Richard L Whitley; R Ryanne Wu; George L Jackson Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Ikenna C Okereke; Maria F Bates; Matthew D Jankowich; Sharon I Rounds; Brian A Kimble; Janelle V Baptiste; Thomas T Ng; Linda L Nici Journal: Chest Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Kristina Crothers; Erin K Kross; Lisa M Reisch; Shahida Shahrir; Christopher Slatore; Steven B Zeliadt; Matthew Triplette; Rafael Meza; Joann G Elmore Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2016-11
Authors: Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: K A M van den Bergh; M L Essink-Bot; G J J M Borsboom; E Th Scholten; M Prokop; H J de Koning; R J van Klaveren Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Alvie Ahsan; Eva Zimmerman; Elisa Marie Rodriguez; Christy Widman; Deborah Oates Erwin; Frances Georgette Saad-Harfouche; Martin Christopher Mahoney Journal: J Cancer Treat Res Date: 2019-03-11
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: Renda Soylemez Wiener; Jack A Clark; Elisa Koppelman; Rendelle Bolton; Gemmae M Fix; Christopher G Slatore; Hasmeena Kathuria Journal: Chest Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 9.410
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: Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Kea Turner; M Patricia Rivera; Daniel S Reuland; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Chest Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 9.410