Samantha L Quaife1, Mamta Ruparel2, Jennifer L Dickson2, Rebecca J Beeken1,3, Andy McEwen4, David R Baldwin5, Angshu Bhowmik6, Neal Navani7, Karen Sennett8, Stephen W Duffy9, Jane Wardle1, Jo Waller1,10, Samuel M Janes2. 1. Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health and. 2. Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 3. Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. 4. National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training, Dorchester, United Kingdom. 5. Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 6. Department of Thoracic Medicine, Homerton University Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 7. Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 8. Killick Street Health Centre, London, United Kingdom. 9. Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; and. 10. School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity. Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening. Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).
Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity. Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening. Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).
Entities:
Keywords:
behavioral sciences; early detection of cancer; lung neoplasms; socioeconomic factors
Authors: M Holmes-Rovner; J Kroll; N Schmitt; D R Rovner; M L Breer; M L Rothert; G Padonu; G Talarczyk Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1996 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; Jonathan D Clapp; Kathy L Clingan; Ilana F Gareen; David A Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Paul F Pinsky Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-11-22 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner; Ines Kralj-Hans; Stephen P Halloran; Samuel G Smith; Lesley M McGregor; Gemma Vart; Rosemary Howe; Julia Snowball; Graham Handley; Richard F Logan; Sandra Rainbow; Steve Smith; Mary C Thomas; Nicholas Counsell; Steve Morris; Stephen W Duffy; Allan Hackshaw; Sue Moss; Wendy Atkin; Rosalind Raine Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Samantha L Quaife; Charlotte Vrinten; Mamta Ruparel; Samuel M Janes; Rebecca J Beeken; Jo Waller; Andy McEwen Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Robert S Kerrison; Lesley M McGregor; Nicholas Counsell; Sarah Marshall; Andrew Prentice; John Isitt; Colin J Rees; Christian von Wagner Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2018-10-22
Authors: Donghoon Shin; Michael D C Fishman; Michael Ngo; Jeffrey Wang; Christina A LeBedis Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2022-01 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Gareth R Iball; Michael Darby; Rhian Gabe; Philip A J Crosbie; Matthew E J Callister Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Hilary A Robbins; Karine Alcala; Anthony J Swerdlow; Minouk J Schoemaker; Nick Wareham; Ruth C Travis; Philip A J Crosbie; Matthew Callister; David R Baldwin; Rebecca Landy; Mattias Johansson Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 9.075
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
Authors: Peter J Mazzone; Gerard A Silvestri; Lesley H Souter; Tanner J Caverly; Jeffrey P Kanne; Hormuzd A Katki; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Frank C Detterbeck Journal: Chest Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Peter J Mazzone; Gerard A Silvestri; Lesley H Souter; Tanner J Caverly; Jeffrey P Kanne; Hormuzd A Katki; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Frank C Detterbeck Journal: Chest Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Sonja Kummer; Jo Waller; Mamta Ruparel; Stephen W Duffy; Samuel M Janes; Samantha L Quaife Journal: Thorax Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 9.102