Literature DB >> 31825647

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials.

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.   

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).

Entities:  

Keywords:  behavioral sciences; early detection of cancer; lung neoplasms; socioeconomic factors

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31825647      PMCID: PMC7159423          DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201905-0946OC

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med        ISSN: 1073-449X            Impact factor:   21.405


  40 in total

1.  Attitudes towards screening for lung cancer among smokers and their non-smoking counterparts.

Authors:  Gerard A Silvestri; Paul J Nietert; James Zoller; Cindy Carter; David Bradford
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2006-11-13       Impact factor: 9.139

2.  Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography in the United States-2010 to 2015.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Stacey A Fedewa
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 31.777

3.  Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale.

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

4.  Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Jolyn Hersch; Alexandra Barratt; Jesse Jansen; Les Irwig; Kevin McGeechan; Gemma Jacklyn; Hazel Thornton; Haryana Dhillon; Nehmat Houssami; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Lisa Carter-Harris; Susan Brandzel; Karen J Wernli; Joshua A Roth; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 2.267

6.  Baseline characteristics of participants in the randomized national lung screening trial.

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

7.  Health literacy and self-efficacy for participating in colorectal cancer screening: The role of information processing.

Authors:  Christian von Wagner; Claudia Semmler; Anna Good; Jane Wardle
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2009-04-21

8.  Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials.

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

9.  Smokers' interest in a lung cancer screening programme: a national survey in England.

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

10.  Use of Two Self-referral Reminders and a Theory-Based Leaflet to Increase the Uptake of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Program: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial in London.

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
View more
  27 in total

1.  The Impact of Social Determinants of Health on Lung Cancer Screening Utilization.

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

2.  Author response.

Authors:  Stephen Bradley
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Establishing scanning protocols for a CT lung cancer screening trial in the UK.

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

Review 4.  An update on CT screening for lung cancer: the first major targeted cancer screening programme.

Authors:  David R Baldwin; Matthew E J Callister
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom.

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

6.  Lessons Learned to Promote Lung Cancer Screening and Preempt Worsening Lung Cancer Disparities.

Authors:  Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Renda Soylemez Wiener
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 21.405

7.  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

8.  Executive Summary: Screening for Lung Cancer: Chest Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

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

9.  Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

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

10.  Psychological outcomes of low-dose CT lung cancer screening in a multisite demonstration screening pilot: the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT).

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.