Lung cancer symptom appraisal, help-seeking and diagnosis - rapid systematic review of differences between patients with and without a smoking history.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the world. A significant minority of lung cancer patients have never smoked (14% in the UK, and ranging from 10% to 25% worldwide). Current evidence suggests that never-smokers encounter delays during the diagnostic pathway, yet it is unclear how their experiences and reasons for delayed diagnoses differ from those of current and former smokers. This rapid review assessed literature about patient experiences in relation to symptom awareness and appraisal, help-seeking, and the lung cancer diagnostic pathway, comparing patients with and without a smoking history. METHODS: MEDLINE, PsychINFO and Google Scholar were searched for studies (2010-2020) that investigated experiences of the pathway to diagnosis for patients with and without a smoking history. Findings are presented using a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Analysis of seven quantitative and three qualitative studies revealed that some delays during symptom appraisal and diagnosis are unique to never-smokers. Due to the strong link between smoking and lung cancer, and low awareness of non-smoking related lung cancer risk factors and symptoms, never-smokers do not perceive themselves to be at risk. Never-smokers are also likely to evaluate their experiences in comparison with other non-smoking related cancers, where prognosis is likely better, potentially leading to lower satisfaction with healthcare. CONCLUSION: Never-smokers appear to have different experiences in relation to symptom appraisal and diagnosis. However, evidence in relation to help-seeking, and what is driving diagnostic delays for never-smoker patients specifically is lacking.

Acceptability of a standalone written leaflet for the National Health Service for England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme: A concurrent, think-aloud study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries are introducing low-dose computed tomography screening programmes for people at high risk of lung cancer. Effective communication strategies that convey risks and benefits, including unfamiliar concepts and outcome probabilities based on population risk, are critical to achieving informed choice and mitigating inequalities in uptake. METHODS: This study investigated the acceptability of an aspect of NHS England's communication strategy in the form of a leaflet that was used to invite and inform eligible adults about the Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme. Acceptability was assessed in terms of how individuals engaged with, comprehended and responded to the leaflet. Semi-structured, 'think aloud' interviews were conducted remotely with 40 UK screening-naïve current and former smokers (aged 55-73). The verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically using a coding framework based on the Dual Process Theory of cognition. RESULTS: The leaflet helped participants understand the principles and procedures of screening and fostered cautiously favourable intentions. Three themes captured the main results of the data analysis: (1) Response-participants experienced anxiety about screening results and further investigations, but the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals was reassuring; (2) Engagement-participants were rapidly drawn to information about lung cancer prevalence, and benefits of screening, but deliberated slowly about early diagnosis, risks of screening and less familiar symptoms of lung cancer; (3) Comprehension-participants understood the main principles of the TLHC programme, but some were confused by its rationale and eligibility criteria. Radiation risks, abnormal screening results and numerical probabilities of screening outcomes were hard to understand. CONCLUSION: The TLHC information leaflet appeared to be acceptable to the target population. There is scope to improve aspects of comprehension and engagement in ways that would support informed choice as a distributed process in lung cancer screening. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The insight and perspectives of patient representatives directly informed and improved the design and conduct of this study.

Decision Support Tools for Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review of Information Content, Format, and Presentation Methods.

Several countries mandate informed or shared decision-making for low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening, but knowledge is limited about the type of information and presentation techniques used to support decision-making in practice. This review aimed to characterize the content, format, mode, and presentation methods of decision support tools (DSTs) for LDCT lung cancer screening. DSTs reported within peer-reviewed articles (January 2000-April 2021) were identified systematically from PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus. Inclusion criteria revolved around the development or evaluation of a resource or tool intended to support individual or shared decision-making for LDCT lung cancer screening. The data-charting and extraction framework was based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards instrument and Template for Intervention Description and Reporting. Extracted data were organized within two categories: (1) study characteristics and context, format, and mode of DST use and (2) DST content and presentation methods. This review identified 22 DSTs in paper, video, or electronic formats across 26 articles. Most DSTs (n = 13) focused on knowledge exchange, whereas seven used interactive techniques to support values clarification (eg, Likert scales) and nine DSTs guided deliberation (eg, suggested discussion topics). The DSTs addressed similar topics, but the detail, quantification of probability, and presentation methods varied considerably. None described all the potential screening harms and results. The heterogeneity in DST design may affect the quality of decision-making, particularly for participants with lower literacy and numeracy. Evidence-based consensus guidelines for DST content and presentation methods should be developed collaboratively with screening-eligible adults.