Literature DB >> 31481631

Attendees of Manchester's Lung Health Check pilot express a preference for community-based lung cancer screening.

Haval Balata1, Janet Tonge2, Phil V Barber3, Denis Colligan2, Peter Elton4, Matthew Evison3, Marie Kirwan5, Juliette Novasio5, Anna Sharman3, Kathryn Slevin5, Sarah Taylor2, Sara Waplington5, Richard Booton3, Phil A Crosbie3,6.   

Abstract

Manchester's 'Lung Health Check' pilot utilised mobile CT scanners in convenient retail locations to deliver lung cancer screening to socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. We assessed whether screening location was an important factor for those attending the service. Location was important for 74.7% (n=701/938) and 23% (n=216/938) reported being less likely to attend an equivalent hospital-based programme. This preference was most common in current smokers (27% current smokers vs 19% former smokers; AdjOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08, p=0.036) and those in the lowest deprivation quartile (25% lowest quartile vs 17.6% highest quartile; AdjOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.24, p=0.005). Practical issues related to travel were most important in those less willing to attend a hospital-based service, with 83.3% citing at least one travel related barrier to non-attendance. A convenient community-based screening programme may reduce inequalities in screening adherence especially in those at high risk of lung cancer in deprived areas. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lung Cancer; Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31481631     DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-212601

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thorax        ISSN: 0040-6376            Impact factor:   9.139


  5 in total

1.  Preferred Lung Cancer Screening Modalities in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Zixuan Zhao; Lingbin Du; Le Wang; Youqing Wang; Yi Yang; Hengjin Dong
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-03       Impact factor: 6.639

2.  Attitudes towards the integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of individuals eligible to attend.

Authors:  Samantha Groves; Grace McCutchan; Samantha L Quaife; Rachael L Murray; Jamie S Ostroff; Kate Brain; Philip A J Crosbie; Janelle Yorke; David Baldwin; John K Field; Lorna McWilliams
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 3.318

3.  Motivation is not enough: A qualitative study of lung cancer screening uptake in Australia to inform future implementation.

Authors:  Kate L A Dunlop; Henry M Marshall; Emily Stone; Ashleigh R Sharman; Rachael H Dodd; Joel J Rhee; Sue McCullough; Nicole M Rankin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 3.752

4.  Addressing Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Healthcare Access. An Official American Thoracic Society Statement.

Authors:  M Patricia Rivera; Hormuzd A Katki; Nichole T Tanner; Matthew Triplette; Lori C Sakoda; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Roberto Cardarelli; Lisa Carter-Harris; Kristina Crothers; Joelle T Fathi; Marvella E Ford; Robert Smith; Robert A Winn; Juan P Wisnivesky; Louise M Henderson; Melinda C Aldrich
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 21.405

5.  Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate invitation to community-based low-dose CT screening for lung cancer versus usual care in a targeted population at risk.

Authors:  Philip Aj Crosbie; Rhian Gabe; Irene Simmonds; Martyn Kennedy; Suzanne Rogerson; Nazia Ahmed; David R Baldwin; Richard Booton; Ann Cochrane; Michael Darby; Kevin Franks; Sebastian Hinde; Sam M Janes; Una Macleod; Mike Messenger; Henrik Moller; Rachael L Murray; Richard D Neal; Samantha L Quaife; Mark Sculpher; Puvanendran Tharmanathan; David Torgerson; Matthew Ej Callister
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.