Mayuko Ito Fukunaga1, Kyle Halligan2, Jennifer Kodela3, Shaun Toomey2, Vanessa Fiorini Furtado4, Roger Luckmann5, Paul K J Han6, Kathleen M Mazor7, Sonal Singh5. 1. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Worchester, MA; Division of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Population Quantitative Health Service, Worchester, MA; Meyers Primary Care Institute, Worcester, MA. Electronic address: mayuko.itofukunaga@umassmed.edu. 2. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Worchester, MA. 3. Department of Medicine, Worchester, MA. 4. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. 5. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Worchester, MA; Meyers Primary Care Institute, Worcester, MA. 6. Center for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME. 7. Department of Medicine, Worchester, MA; Meyers Primary Care Institute, Worcester, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decisions about lung cancer screening are inherently complex and create a need for methods to convey the risks and benefits of screening to patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: What kind of decision aids or tools are available to support shared decision-making for lung cancer screening? What is the current evidence for the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of those tools? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2019 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of tools to promote shared decision-making for patients who are considering lung cancer screening. RESULTS: After screening 2,427 records, we included one randomized control trial, two observational studies, 11 before/after studies of a decision aid or an educational tool. Fifteen distinct tools in various formats were evaluated in 14 studies. Most studies were of fair quality. Studies reported improvement in patients' knowledge of lung cancer screening (n = 9 studies), but improvements in specific areas of knowledge were inconsistent. Decisional conflict was low or reduced after the administration of the tools (n = 7 studies). The acceptability of tools was rated as "high" by patients (n = 7 studies) and physicians (n = 1 study). Low dose CT scan completion rates varied among studies (n = 6 studies). INTERPRETATION: Evidence from 14 studies suggests that some elements of existing tools for lung cancer screening may help to prepare patients for decision-making by improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. Such tools generally are acceptable to patients and providers. Further studies that use consistent measures and reporting methods and assess relevant decisional and clinical outcomes are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and feasibility of implementation of these tools. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2018 CRD4201874814.
BACKGROUND: Decisions about lung cancer screening are inherently complex and create a need for methods to convey the risks and benefits of screening to patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: What kind of decision aids or tools are available to support shared decision-making for lung cancer screening? What is the current evidence for the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of those tools? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2019 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of tools to promote shared decision-making for patients who are considering lung cancer screening. RESULTS: After screening 2,427 records, we included one randomized control trial, two observational studies, 11 before/after studies of a decision aid or an educational tool. Fifteen distinct tools in various formats were evaluated in 14 studies. Most studies were of fair quality. Studies reported improvement in patients' knowledge of lung cancer screening (n = 9 studies), but improvements in specific areas of knowledge were inconsistent. Decisional conflict was low or reduced after the administration of the tools (n = 7 studies). The acceptability of tools was rated as "high" by patients (n = 7 studies) and physicians (n = 1 study). Low dose CT scan completion rates varied among studies (n = 6 studies). INTERPRETATION: Evidence from 14 studies suggests that some elements of existing tools for lung cancer screening may help to prepare patients for decision-making by improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. Such tools generally are acceptable to patients and providers. Further studies that use consistent measures and reporting methods and assess relevant decisional and clinical outcomes are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and feasibility of implementation of these tools. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2018 CRD4201874814.
Authors: Robert J Volk; Suzanne K Linder; Viola B Leal; Vance Rabius; Paul M Cinciripini; Geetanjali R Kamath; Reginald F Munden; Therese B Bevers Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Mary Ann O'Brien; Timothy J Whelan; Miguel Villasis-Keever; Amiram Gafni; Cathy Charles; Robin Roberts; Susan Schiff; Wenjie Cai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-01-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jan M Eberth; Karen Kane McDonnell; Erica Sercy; Samira Khan; Scott M Strayer; Amy C Dievendorf; Reginald F Munden; Sally W Vernon Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2018-05-22
Authors: Robert J Volk; Lisa M Lowenstein; Viola B Leal; Kamisha H Escoto; Scott B Cantor; Reginald F Munden; Vance A Rabius; Linda Bailey; Paul M Cinciripini; Heather Lin; Ashley J Housten; Pamela Graef Luckett; Angelina Esparza; Myrna C Godoy; Therese B Bevers Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-01-03
Authors: Natalie Joseph-Williams; Robert Newcombe; Mary Politi; Marie-Anne Durand; Stephanie Sivell; Dawn Stacey; Annette O'Connor; Robert J Volk; Adrian Edwards; Carol Bennett; Michael Pignone; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Tina D Tailor; M Patricia Rivera; Danielle D Durham; Pasangi Perera; Lindsay Lane; Louise M Henderson Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2022-04-16 Impact factor: 6.240
Authors: Mayuko Ito Fukunaga; Akshu Balwan; Jaclyn A Janis; Caitlin Gutheil; Jason Yahwak; Paul K J Han Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 1.771
Authors: Naomi Q P Tan; Shawn P E Nishi; Lisa M Lowenstein; Tito R Mendoza; Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Laura C Crocker; Karen R Sepucha; Robert J Volk Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Mbasan Jallow; Georgia Black; Sandra van Os; David R Baldwin; Kate E Brain; Michael Donnelly; Samuel M Janes; Clara Kurtidu; Grace McCutchan; Kathryn A Robb; Mamta Ruparel; Samantha L Quaife Journal: Health Expect Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 3.318