INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence-based implementation strategies exist for maintaining lung cancer screening. We evaluated the Lung Cancer Screening Program at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) to develop multilevel interventions to improve screening adherence. METHODS: We conducted a concurrent mixed-methods study 1) to measure adherence to repeat screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT); 2) to interview KPWA stakeholders to understand the Lung Cancer Screening Program; and 3) to conduct codesign workshops with KPWA members and researchers. We used descriptive statistics to describe adherence, and rapid qualitative data analysis for stakeholder interviews and workshops. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, 2089 KPWA members had initial LDCT scans with negative, benign or short-interval follow-up results. Among those with sufficient follow-up, the proportion with on-time repeat screening after a negative LDCT was 26.4% after the initial scan, and increased to 43.1% on subsequent scans. Opportunities for health-care system improvement included clarification of clinical roles and responsibilities, care coordination across providers, ongoing training in lung cancer screening, and revising electronic health record tools. From patient perspectives, facilitators to repeat screening were making screening personalized and convenient; offering consistent messages and reminders in different modes; increasing patient knowledge about benefits, harms, and expectations of LDCT; and providing nonfinancial and financial incentives for adherence. From a storyboard exercise, we identified 10 design features for lung cancer screening interventions, including versatility of communication, social support, and knowledge. CONCLUSION: We identified clear gaps in adherence to lung cancer screenings, organizational and clinical barriers to care, and design features for patient-centered interventions to improve lung cancer screening in US settings.
INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence-based implementation strategies exist for maintaining lung cancer screening. We evaluated the Lung Cancer Screening Program at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) to develop multilevel interventions to improve screening adherence. METHODS: We conducted a concurrent mixed-methods study 1) to measure adherence to repeat screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT); 2) to interview KPWA stakeholders to understand the Lung Cancer Screening Program; and 3) to conduct codesign workshops with KPWA members and researchers. We used descriptive statistics to describe adherence, and rapid qualitative data analysis for stakeholder interviews and workshops. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, 2089 KPWA members had initial LDCT scans with negative, benign or short-interval follow-up results. Among those with sufficient follow-up, the proportion with on-time repeat screening after a negative LDCT was 26.4% after the initial scan, and increased to 43.1% on subsequent scans. Opportunities for health-care system improvement included clarification of clinical roles and responsibilities, care coordination across providers, ongoing training in lung cancer screening, and revising electronic health record tools. From patient perspectives, facilitators to repeat screening were making screening personalized and convenient; offering consistent messages and reminders in different modes; increasing patient knowledge about benefits, harms, and expectations of LDCT; and providing nonfinancial and financial incentives for adherence. From a storyboard exercise, we identified 10 design features for lung cancer screening interventions, including versatility of communication, social support, and knowledge. CONCLUSION: We identified clear gaps in adherence to lung cancer screenings, organizational and clinical barriers to care, and design features for patient-centered interventions to improve lung cancer screening in US settings.
Authors: Pamela S Sinicrope; Ellen L Goode; Paul J Limburg; Sally W Vernon; Joseph B Wick; Christi A Patten; Paul A Decker; Andrew C Hanson; Christina M Smith; Timothy J Beebe; Frank A Sinicrope; Noralane M Lindor; Tabetha A Brockman; L Joseph Melton; Gloria M Petersen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Timothy R Church; Richard M Fagerstrom; Barbara Galen; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Jonathan Goldin; John K Gohagan; Bruce Hillman; Carl Jaffe; Barnett S Kramer; David Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Mitchell Schnall; Daniel C Sullivan; Dorothy Sullivan; Carl J Zylak Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anand Narayan; Alexander Fischer; Zihe Zhang; Ryan Woods; Elizabeth Morris; Susan Harvey Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Matthew Triplette; J Hank Thayer; Erin K Kross; Allison M Cole; David Wenger; Farhood Farjah; Viswam S Nair; Kristina Crothers Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2020-09-18
Authors: Kelly D Blake; Chan Thai; Angela Falisi; Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou; April Oh; Devlon Jackson; Anna Gaysynsky; Bradford W Hesse Journal: Health Educ Behav Date: 2019-11-08
Authors: U Pastorino; N Sverzellati; S Sestini; M Silva; F Sabia; M Boeri; A Cantarutti; G Sozzi; G Corrao; A Marchianò Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2019-07-20 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Timothy R Church; William C Black; Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; Kathy L Clingan; Fenghai Duan; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; David S Gierada; Gordon C Jones; Irene Mahon; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks; Amanda Jain; Sarah Baum Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 91.245