Donghoon Shin1, Michael D C Fishman2, Michael Ngo3, Jeffrey Wang3, Christina A LeBedis4. 1. Department of Radiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: donghoon.shin@bmc.org. 2. Section Chief, Breast Imaging and Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Radiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Section Chief, Abdominal Imaging and Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to understand how social determinants of health might influence lung cancer screening (LCS) adherence. METHODS: All LCS low-dose CT appointments scheduled at an urban, tertiary care academic medical center in the New England region between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, were included. Demographics, insurance type, information on social determinants of health, and appointment status were obtained from the electronic medical records. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate the associations between the appointment status and the explanatory variables. RESULTS: During the study period, 2,797 patients had 4,747 scheduled LCS appointments. Forty-one percent of patients had at least one missed appointment, and 32.7% of all scheduled appointments were missed. The retention rate of patients after the baseline examination was approximately 50%. Self-reported Black race was independently associated with 1.5 times the odds of missing appointments compared with White race (P = .012). Patients with Medicaid had 6.1 times the odds of missing appointments compared with patients with private insurance and 4.6 times the odds of missing appointments compared with patients with Medicare (P < .0001). Housing insecurity was a risk factor for failing to follow up after the baseline examination, with an odds ratio of 5.3 (P = .0013). CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of missed LCS appointments underscores the need to improve screening compliance. The identification of specific social determinants of health that contribute to disparities in access to LCS could empower policymakers, hospital systems, and providers to use targeted interventions to promote more equitable access.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to understand how social determinants of health might influence lung cancer screening (LCS) adherence. METHODS: All LCS low-dose CT appointments scheduled at an urban, tertiary care academic medical center in the New England region between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, were included. Demographics, insurance type, information on social determinants of health, and appointment status were obtained from the electronic medical records. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate the associations between the appointment status and the explanatory variables. RESULTS: During the study period, 2,797 patients had 4,747 scheduled LCS appointments. Forty-one percent of patients had at least one missed appointment, and 32.7% of all scheduled appointments were missed. The retention rate of patients after the baseline examination was approximately 50%. Self-reported Black race was independently associated with 1.5 times the odds of missing appointments compared with White race (P = .012). Patients with Medicaid had 6.1 times the odds of missing appointments compared with patients with private insurance and 4.6 times the odds of missing appointments compared with patients with Medicare (P < .0001). Housing insecurity was a risk factor for failing to follow up after the baseline examination, with an odds ratio of 5.3 (P = .0013). CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of missed LCS appointments underscores the need to improve screening compliance. The identification of specific social determinants of health that contribute to disparities in access to LCS could empower policymakers, hospital systems, and providers to use targeted interventions to promote more equitable access.
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Pablo Buitron de la Vega; Stephanie Losi; Linda Sprague Martinez; Allison Bovell-Ammon; Arvin Garg; Thea James; Alana M Ewen; Marna Stack; Heloisa DeCarvalho; Megan Sandel; Rebecca G Mishuris; Stella Deych; Patrick Pelletier; Nancy R Kressin Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Samantha L Quaife; Mamta Ruparel; Jennifer L Dickson; Rebecca J Beeken; Andy McEwen; David R Baldwin; Angshu Bhowmik; Neal Navani; Karen Sennett; Stephen W Duffy; Jane Wardle; Jo Waller; Samuel M Janes Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Phil A Crosbie; Haval Balata; Matthew Evison; Melanie Atack; Val Bayliss-Brideaux; Denis Colligan; Rebecca Duerden; Josephine Eaglesfield; Timothy Edwards; Peter Elton; Julie Foster; Melanie Greaves; Graham Hayler; Coral Higgins; John Howells; Klaus Irion; Devinda Karunaratne; Jodie Kelly; Zoe King; Judith Lyons; Sarah Manson; Stuart Mellor; Donna Miller; Amanda Myerscough; Tom Newton; Michelle O'Leary; Rachel Pearson; Julie Pickford; Richard Sawyer; Nick J Screaton; Anna Sharman; Maggi Simmons; Elaine Smith; Ben Taylor; Sarah Taylor; Anna Walsham; Angela Watts; James Whittaker; Laura Yarnell; Anthony Threlfall; Phil V Barber; Janet Tonge; Richard Booton Journal: Thorax Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 9.139
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