Mamta Ruparel1, Samantha L Quaife2, Bhagabati Ghimire3, Jennifer L Dickson1, Angshu Bhowmik4, Neal Navani1,5, David R Baldwin6, Stephen Duffy3, Jo Waller2, Sam M Janes1. 1. 1 Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, and. 2. 2 Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 3. 3 Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University, London, United Kingdom. 4. 4 Department of Thoracic Medicine, Homerton University Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 5. 5 Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom; and. 6. 6 Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Rationale: Lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives, but it also carries a risk of potential harms. Explaining the benefits and harms of screening in a way that is balanced and comprehensible to individuals with various levels of education is essential. Although a shared decision-making approach is mandated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, there have been no randomized studies to evaluate the impact of different forms of lung screening information. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a novel information film on informed decision-making in individuals considering participating in lung cancer screening. Methods: A subset of participants from LSUT (Lung Screen Uptake Trial) were randomly allocated either to view the information film and receive a written information booklet or to receive the booklet alone. The primary outcome was the objective knowledge score after intervention. Secondary outcomes included subjective knowledge, decisional conflict, final screening participation, and acceptability of the materials. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine differences in pre- and postintervention knowledge scores in both groups and between groups for the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: In the final analysis of 229 participants, both groups showed significantly improved subjective and objective knowledge scores after intervention. This improvement was greatest in the film + booklet group, where mean objective knowledge improved by 2.16 points (standard deviation [SD] 1.8) compared with 1.84 points (SD 1.9) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.62; confidence interval, 0.17-1.08; P = 0.007 in the multivariable analysis). Mean subjective knowledge increased by 0.92 points (SD 1.0) in the film + booklet group and 0.55 points (SD 1.1) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.32; CI, 0.05-0.58; P = 0.02 in the multivariable analysis). Decisional certainty was higher in the film + booklet (mean 8.5/9 points [SD 1.3], group than in the booklet-alone group (mean 8.2/9 points [SD 1.5]). Both information materials were well accepted, and there were no differences in final screening participation rates between groups. Conclusions: The information film improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict without affecting lung-screening uptake. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101).
RCT Entities:
Rationale: Lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives, but it also carries a risk of potential harms. Explaining the benefits and harms of screening in a way that is balanced and comprehensible to individuals with various levels of education is essential. Although a shared decision-making approach is mandated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, there have been no randomized studies to evaluate the impact of different forms of lung screening information. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a novel information film on informed decision-making in individuals considering participating in lung cancer screening. Methods: A subset of participants from LSUT (Lung Screen Uptake Trial) were randomly allocated either to view the information film and receive a written information booklet or to receive the booklet alone. The primary outcome was the objective knowledge score after intervention. Secondary outcomes included subjective knowledge, decisional conflict, final screening participation, and acceptability of the materials. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine differences in pre- and postintervention knowledge scores in both groups and between groups for the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: In the final analysis of 229 participants, both groups showed significantly improved subjective and objective knowledge scores after intervention. This improvement was greatest in the film + booklet group, where mean objective knowledge improved by 2.16 points (standard deviation [SD] 1.8) compared with 1.84 points (SD 1.9) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.62; confidence interval, 0.17-1.08; P = 0.007 in the multivariable analysis). Mean subjective knowledge increased by 0.92 points (SD 1.0) in the film + booklet group and 0.55 points (SD 1.1) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.32; CI, 0.05-0.58; P = 0.02 in the multivariable analysis). Decisional certainty was higher in the film + booklet (mean 8.5/9 points [SD 1.3], group than in the booklet-alone group (mean 8.2/9 points [SD 1.5]). Both information materials were well accepted, and there were no differences in final screening participation rates between groups. Conclusions: The information film improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict without affecting lung-screening uptake. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101).
Entities:
Keywords:
educational video; information film; informed decision-making; lung cancer screening; shared decision-making
Authors: H Jean Wiese; Carl Boethel; Barbara Phillips; John F Wilson; Jane Peters; Theresa Viggiano Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 3.492
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: Martin C Tammemagi; Heidi Schmidt; Simon Martel; Annette McWilliams; John R Goffin; Michael R Johnston; Garth Nicholas; Alain Tremblay; Rick Bhatia; Geoffrey Liu; Kam Soghrati; Kazuhiro Yasufuku; David M Hwang; Francis Laberge; Michel Gingras; Sergio Pasian; Christian Couture; John R Mayo; Paola V Nasute Fauerbach; Sukhinder Atkar-Khattra; Stuart J Peacock; Sonya Cressman; Diana Ionescu; John C English; Richard J Finley; John Yee; Serge Puksa; Lori Stewart; Scott Tsai; Ehsan Haider; Colm Boylan; Jean-Claude Cutz; Daria Manos; Zhaolin Xu; Glenwood D Goss; Jean M Seely; Kayvan Amjadi; Harmanjatinder S Sekhon; Paul Burrowes; Paul MacEachern; Stefan Urbanski; Don D Sin; Wan C Tan; Natasha B Leighl; Frances A Shepherd; William K Evans; Ming-Sound Tsao; Stephen Lam Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Adrian Cassidy; Stephen W Duffy; Jonathan P Myles; Triantafillos Liloglou; John K Field Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2007-01-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: J K Field; S W Duffy; D R Baldwin; D K Whynes; A Devaraj; K E Brain; T Eisen; J Gosney; B A Green; J A Holemans; T Kavanagh; K M Kerr; M Ledson; K J Lifford; F E McRonald; A Nair; R D Page; M K B Parmar; D M Rassl; R C Rintoul; N J Screaton; N J Wald; D Weller; P R Williamson; G Yadegarfar; D M Hansell Journal: Thorax Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Thomas E Elliott; Stephen E Asche; Patrick J O'Connor; Steven P Dehmer; Heidi L Ekstrom; Anjali R Truitt; Ella A Chrenka; Melissa L Harry; Daniel M Saman; Clayton I Allen; Joseph A Bianco; Laura A Freitag; JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 2.749
Authors: Frederick R Kates; Ryan Romero; Daniel Jones; Jacqueline Egelfeld; Santanu Datta Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 6.473