Literature DB >> 32535225

Predictors of participant nonadherence in lung cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Andrew C L Lam1, Reenika Aggarwal2, Serina Cheung3, Erin L Stewart4, Gail Darling5, Stephen Lam6, Wei Xu7, Geoffrey Liu8, John Kavanagh9.   

Abstract

The low nonadherence rates reported by large low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials were not necessarily replicated outside of trial conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified predictors of participant nonadherence to returning for annual LDCT screening. The systematic review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42019118347). MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AgeLine, grey literature sources, and reference lists of included studies were searched until March 1st, 2020. Primary research articles were eligible for inclusion if they screened current or former smokers using LDCT as their primary screening modality and reported on participant demographics or programmatic interventions that predicted nonadherence. Risk of bias assessment was performed at both study and outcome levels. The primary outcome was predictors of nonadherence. The secondary outcomes were relative risks (RR) of second round nonadherence based on identified predictors, which were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. Across 13 included studies (total n = 15,790; range: 157-3642), the overall rate of nonadherence was 28% (95% CI: 20-37%). Studies identified greater nonadherence in participants younger than 60 or older than 74, with longer travel distances to screening centers, and having a low risk perception of lung cancer. Meta-analyses identified higher nonadherence in community-based compared to academic-based programs, but this did not reach significance (32% versus 27%; p = 0.32). Current smokers were more likely to be nonadherent compared to former smokers (RR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.09-1.40; p < 0.01) while white participants were less likely nonadherent compared to non-white participants (RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.60-0.81; p < 0.0001). No differences existed between male and female participants (RR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.85-1.15; p = 0.85). Programmatic interventions, including dedicated program coordinators, reminder calls/letters, and mobile LDCT scanners reduced nonadherence in lung cancer screening programs. These interventions should be targeted/tailored toward the subpopulations with the highest nonadherence rates.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer screening; Computed tomography; Early detection of cancer; Guideline adherence; Lung cancer; Lung neoplasms; Mass screening; Patient adherence; Patient compliance; Patient satisfaction

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32535225     DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.05.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lung Cancer        ISSN: 0169-5002            Impact factor:   5.705


  9 in total

1.  Evidence of Racial Disparities in the Lung Cancer Screening Process: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yukiko Kunitomo; Brett Bade; Craig G Gunderson; Kathleen M Akgün; Alexandria Brackett; Lynn Tanoue; Lori A Bastian
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 6.473

2.  Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening: What Exactly Are We Talking About?

Authors:  Lori C Sakoda; Louise M Henderson; M Patricia Rivera
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2021-12

3.  Barriers and facilitators for cervical cancer screening among adolescents and young people: a systematic review.

Authors:  Abirami Kirubarajan; Shannon Leung; Xinglin Li; Matthew Yau; Mara Sobel
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 2.809

Review 4.  Patient Adherence to Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System-Recommended Screening Intervals in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yannan Lin; Mingzhou Fu; Ruiwen Ding; Kosuke Inoue; Christie Y Jeon; William Hsu; Denise R Aberle; Ashley Elizabeth Prosper
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2021-10-06       Impact factor: 15.609

Review 5.  New Implications of Patients' Sex in Today's Lung Cancer Management.

Authors:  Jo Raskin; Annemiek Snoeckx; Annelies Janssens; Charlotte De Bondt; Reinier Wener; Mick van de Wiel; Jan P van Meerbeeck; Evelien Smits
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 6.575

Review 6.  Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: Clinical evidence and implementation research.

Authors:  Harriet L Lancaster; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Matthijs Oudkerk
Journal:  J Intern Med       Date:  2022-03-24       Impact factor: 13.068

7.  Access to Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration: Does Geographic Distribution Match Need in the Population?

Authors:  Jacqueline H Boudreau; Donald R Miller; Shirley Qian; Eduardo R Nunez; Tanner J Caverly; Renda Soylemez Wiener
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 10.262

8.  Determinants Associated With Longitudinal Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening: A Retrospective Analysis of Claims Data.

Authors:  Erin A Hirsch; Anna E Barón; Betsy Risendal; Jamie L Studts; Melissa L New; Stephen P Malkoski
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2021-03-30       Impact factor: 6.240

9.  Patient Adherence to Screening for Lung Cancer in the US: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Kristin G Maki; Noah J Choi; Richard M Hoffman; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Lisa M Lowenstein; Rachel S Hicklen; Robert J Volk
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-11-02
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.