Potential role of cannabis in ameliorating observed racialized disparities in cancer pain management.

Cancer-related pain affects a significant proportion of all cancer patients yet remains inadequately managed, particularly among cancer patients from racialized backgrounds. In recent years, there has been increased research and clinical interest in the use of medical cannabis for cancer pain management, including its potential to ameliorate racialized disparities in cancer pain control. Although medical cannabis is not currently an FDA-approved treatment option for cancer-related pain, many oncologists discuss and recommend its use with their patients, underscoring the need for researchers and clinicians to proactively identify barriers to cannabis for cancer pain management that may disproportionately impact racialized cancer patients. In this commentary, we highlight challenges cancer patients from racialized backgrounds may face when incorporating cannabis into their palliative care regimens and discuss opportunities for researchers and clinicians to address these challenges should medical cannabis become a recommended treatment option for cancer pain management. In particular, we identify challenges at the structural (eg, lack of insurance coverage), provider (eg, racialized stereotypes regarding addiction and pain) and individual (eg, internalized stigma) levels and emphasize the importance of multi-level approaches in combating these challenges as the evidence base regarding medical cannabis and its potential harms and therapeutic benefits continues to accumulate.

The Association of Context with Reported Self-Efficacy for Cancer-Preventive Behaviors and Perceived Cancer Risk in U.S. Adults from the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) Study.

Background: Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. It is critical to understand the associations among multilevel determinants of cancer prevention and control behaviors. This study examined associations of neighborhood factors with perceived risk of cancer and self-efficacy for reducing cancer risk. Methods: Cross-sectional analyses included 2324 U.S. adults from the Midlife in the U.S. Wave 3. Participants completed surveys of neighborhood environment (perceived neighborhood trust and safety, built environment conditions, social integration), perceived cancer risk and cancer prevention efficacy. Multivariate linear regressions examined associations of neighborhood context with risk perceptions and self-efficacy. Results: In the model that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, better perceived neighborhood trust and safety were associated with lower perceived cancer risk. In fully adjusted models for sociodemographic characteristics and contextual factors, higher perceptions of neighborhood trust and safety were associated with higher cancer prevention self-efficacy. Perceptions of better built neighborhood conditions and higher social integration were significantly associated with lower perceived cancer risk and higher perceived cancer prevention efficacy. Conclusions: Perceptions of neighborhood context may play a role in shaping psychosocial factors such as perceived cancer risk and self-efficacy, even after controlling for robust predictors of these perceptions.

Synergistic Opportunities for Affective Science and Behavior Change.

Behavior change can be challenging to facilitate and achieve. Behavior change frameworks largely focus on social cognitive determinants, omitting affective determinants or including them in a superficial way. However, evidence points to the role of affect in decision-making and behavior, particularly when the behavior at focus for change is affectively pleasant or when the behavior to be facilitated is affectively unpleasant. This paper identifies challenges and opportunities to further affective science by using behavior change as a context and, relatedly, to further the science of behavior change by leveraging theoretical and methodological innovations in affective science.

Affective Science Research: Perspectives and Priorities from the National Institutes of Health.

Affective science is a broad and burgeoning field, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) support research on a similarly broad range of topics. Across NIH, funding is available for basic, translational, and intervention research, including research in non-human animals, healthy populations, and those with or at risk for disease. Multiple NIH Institutes and Centers have specific programs devoted to topics within the affective science umbrella. Here, we introduce the funding priorities of these six: the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institute on Aging (NIA), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD). We then discuss overlapping themes and offer a perspective on promising research directions.

Support-Giving Is Associated With Lower Systemic Inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Support-giving has emerged as a health-relevant social behavior, such that giving more support is associated with better physical health. However, biological mechanisms by which support-giving and health are linked remain unclear. Whether support-giving uniquely relates to health relative to other psychosocial factors is also an open research question. PURPOSE: Two studies test the hypothesis that support-giving is uniquely (over-and-above other psychosocial factors) related to lower systemic inflammation, a biological correlate of health. METHODS: Cross-sectional associations of support-giving with markers of systemic inflammation (i.e., interleukin-6 [IL-6], C-reactive protein [CRP]) were examined in two independent samples of midlife adults (Study 1, n = 746; Study 2, n = 350). RESULTS: Consistent with hypotheses, giving to more social targets (to family and friends, and also volunteering for various causes), but not receiving support from similar targets, was associated with lower IL-6. In conceptual replication and extension with a different measure of support-giving, higher frequency of support-giving behavior was associated with lower IL-6, even after adjusting for social network size and individual differences in social desirability. There were no associations between support-giving and CRP in either sample. CONCLUSIONS: Future research needs to establish causality and directly test mechanistic pathways, but together, findings reaffirm the health-relevance of support-giving behavior and shed light on a promising biological mechanism by which such effects may occur.

Support-giving behavior and health are linked such that more support-giving is related to better health and longevity for the person giving. How such a link occurs, however, is an open question for research. Two cross-sectional studies test the hypothesis that support-giving behavior relates to lower systemic inflammation, a potential biological pathway linking supportive behavior with health. Results of Study 1 show that giving to more social targets (to family and friends, and also volunteering) is associated with lower inflammation. Receiving support was not associated with inflammation. In a replication and extension, Study 2 shows that a greater frequency of giving is also related to lower systemic inflammation, over and above the size of one's social network and individual differences in reporting socially desirable responses. Although more research is needed to establish whether support-giving causes systemic inflammation to change, the current findings highlight a promising pathway by which support-giving behavior benefits health.

Sun protection behavior: health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions.

Sun protection behavior can reduce skin cancer risk. This paper provides an overview of skin cancer risk and the complex behavioral options for sun protection, along with a narrative review of research on determinants of, and interventions to promote, sun protection. Gaps and opportunities for future research are also outlined. Evidence supports the effectiveness of sunscreen use, ultraviolet (UV) protection clothing, and shade seeking. However, these behaviors are complex and are often performed in ways that are inadequate for sun protection. Most research examining and targeting determinants of sun protection behavior has focused on sunscreen use, to the exclusion of other strategies, and has largely ignored the complexity of even sunscreen use. Most research and interventions are theory- driven, drawing on social cognitive constructs, but also considering self and social identity and emotion. Multilevel perspectives considering context, environment, policies, and other structural contexts have also been applied to sun protection behavior, but there is a need to combine psychological constructs with factors at other levels to optimize predictive models and intervention effectiveness. Effective sun protection effectively involves complex behaviors and perceived and actual tradeoffs that should be considered, in combination with multilevel determinants, in research predicting and promoting sun safety.

Future-oriented Emotions and Decisions to Receive Genomic Testing Results Among U.S. Adults of African Ancestry.

BACKGROUND: Future-oriented emotions are associated with consequential health decision-making, including genomic testing decisions. However, little is known about the relative role of various future-oriented emotions in such decisions. Moreover, most research on predictors of decision making regarding genomic testing is conducted with white participants. PURPOSE: This study examined the role of future-oriented emotions in decisions to receive genomic testing results in U.S. individuals of African descent. METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional survey data from a genomic sequencing cohort (N = 408). All participants identified as African, African-American, or Afro-Caribbean (Mage = 56.3, 74.7% female). Participants completed measures assessing anticipatory affect (worry about genetic testing results), anticipated distress (feeling devastated if genetic testing showed an increased risk for fatal disease), and anticipated regret (regretting a decision not to learn results). Outcomes were intentions for learning actionable, nonactionable, and carrier results. RESULTS: Anticipated regret was robustly positively associated with intentions to receive actionable (b = 0.28, p < .001), nonactionable (b = 0.39, p < .001), and carrier (b = 0.30, p < .001) results. Anticipated distress was negatively associated with intentions to receive nonactionable results only (b = -0.16, p < .01). Anticipatory negative affect (worry) was not associated with intentions. At higher levels of anticipated regret, anticipated distress was less strongly associated with intentions to receive nonactionable results (b = 0.14, p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the role of future-oriented emotions in genomic testing among participants who are typically underrepresented in genomic testing studies and behavioral medicine broadly. Future work should examine whether interventions targeting future-oriented emotions such as anticipated regret may have clinically meaningful effects in genetic counseling in similar cohorts.

Future-oriented emotions (emotions directed toward a future outcome, such as worrying about a future outcome, or expecting to feel distress or regret if a particular outcome occurs) are important predictors of health decisions, including decisions to seek and receive genomic testing results. Understanding how such factors relate to decisions to receive genetic testing results is particularly important in medically-underserved groups such as individuals of African ancestry, who are underrepresented in genomics and behavioral science research. We analyzed survey responses from a genomic sequencing cohort where all 408 participants identified as African, African-American, or Afro-Caribbean, and were asked about their level of worry, anticipated distress, and anticipated regret about results, plus their interest in receiving three types of genomic testing results from the study. We found that participants who expected that they would regret their decision to not learn the results had stronger intentions to receive all three types of results; those who expected to feel distressed by a genetic testing result that showed an increased risk for a fatal disease were less interested in nonactionable genetic testing results specifically. Our results highlight the differing roles of specific types of future-oriented emotions in genomic testing decisions, among participants who are typically underrepresented in this type of research.

Perceptions and tolerance of uncertainty: relationship to trust in COVID-19 health information and vaccine hesitancy.

The COVID-19 crisis has exposed the public to considerable scientific uncertainty, which may promote vaccine hesitancy among individuals with lower tolerance of uncertainty. In a national sample of US adults in May-June 2020, we examined how both perceptions of uncertainty about COVID-19 and trait-level differences in tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources (risk, ambiguity, and complexity) are related to vaccine hesitancy-related outcomes, including trust in COVID-19 information, COVID-19 vaccine intentions, and beliefs that COVID-19 vaccines should undergo a longer testing period before being released to the public. Overall, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty were not associated with trust in information, vaccine intentions, or beliefs about vaccine testing. However, higher tolerance of risk was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated, and lower tolerance of ambiguity was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated and preferring a longer period of vaccine testing. Critically, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty and trait-level tolerance for uncertainty also interacted as predicted, such that greater perceived COVID-19 uncertainty was more negatively associated with trust in COVID-19 information among individuals with lower tolerance for risk and ambiguity. Thus, although perceptions of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 may not reduce trust and vaccine hesitancy for all individuals, trait-level tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources may have both direct and moderating effects on these outcomes. These findings can inform public health communication or other interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake.

Increasing Receptivity to COVID-19 Public Health Messages with Self-Affirmation and Self vs. Other Framing.

There remains an urgent need for effective communication about the importance of widespread adherence to behavioral recommendations to control the COVID-19 pandemic that will also reduce resistance to such guidance. We examined two strategies for COVID-19 communication- (1) self-affirmation (reflecting on a personal value in order to boost self-integrity and reduce defensiveness to potentially threatening information); and (2) manipulating self/other message framing - and moderation of these strategies by COVID-19 risk. 600 participants (Mage = 32.55, 51% female) were recruited for an online study and, after assessment of risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, were exposed to the experimental manipulations. Three classes of defensive responses were considered as outcomes of interest: reactance, attitudinal responses, and behavioral responses. We found that participants derogated the self-focused message more than the other-focused message. Further, other-focused messaging and/or self-affirmation were more likely to elicit positive responses among individuals at higher risk for COVID-19 complications. Our findings suggest having individuals affirm values prior to viewing COVID-19 messages, and framing messages in terms of the importance of protecting others, may be beneficial strategies for encouraging responsiveness - particularly if the targets of such messages are at risk of COVID-19 complications themselves.

Activation Versus Change as a Principle Underlying Intervention Strategies to Promote Health Behaviors.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Interventions are effective in promoting health behavior change to the extent that (a) intervention strategies modify targets (i.e., mechanisms of action), and (b) modifying targets leads to changes in behavior. To complement taxonomies that characterize the variety of strategies used in behavioral interventions, we outline a new principle that specifies how strategies modify targets and thereby promote behavior change. We distinguish two dimensions of targets-value (positive vs. negative) and accessibility (activation level)-and show that intervention strategies operate either by altering the value of what people think, feel, or want (target change) or by heightening the accessibility of behavior-related thoughts, feelings, and goals (target activation). METHODS AND RESULTS: We review strategies designed to promote target activation and find that nudges, cue-reminders, goal priming, the question-behavior effect, and if-then planning are each effective in generating health behavior change, and that their effectiveness accrues from heightened accessibility of relevant targets. We also identify several other strategies that may operate, at least in part, via target activation (e.g., self-monitoring, message framing, anticipated regret inductions, and habits). CONCLUSIONS: The Activation Vs. Change Principle (AVCP) offers a theoretically grounded and parsimonious means of distinguishing among intervention strategies. By focusing on how strategies modify targets, the AVCP can aid interventionists in deciding which intervention strategies to deploy and how to combine different strategies in behavioral trials. We outline a research agenda that could serve to further enhance the design and delivery of interventions to promote target activation.

Responsive social support serves important functions in clinical communication: Translating perspectives from relationship science to improve cancer clinical interactions.

Patient-clinician interactions are critical to patient-centered care, including in cancer care contexts which are often defined by multiple patient-clinician interactions over an extended period. Research on these dyadic interactions has been guided by perspectives in clinical communication science, but the study of clinical communication has not been fully integrated with perspectives on interpersonal interactions from relationship science research. An overlapping concept in both fields is the concept of responsive socialsupport. In this article, we discuss responsiveness as a concept that offers opportunities for connections between these two disciplines. Next, we focus on how relationship science can be applied to research in clinical settings. We discuss how three areas of relationship science define responsiveness and have potential for extension to clinical communication: (1) (in)visibility of social support, (2) attachment orientations, and (3) shared meaning systems. We also discuss how social biases can impede responsiveness and suggest research avenues to develop ideas and understand potential challenges in connecting these two fields. Many opportunities exist for interdisciplinary theory development that can generate momentum in understanding interpersonal processes in cancer care.

Understanding responses to different types of conflicting information about cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND: Individuals are regularly exposed to conflicting information about health; however, understanding of how individuals respond to different types of conflicting information is limited. METHODS: In total, 1027 US adults were randomly assigned to 1 of 8 conflicting information messages about nutrition and cancer risk, depicting 1/4 conflicting information types (conflict in evidence - sources A and B agree the evidence is mixed; conflict between two expert sources - sources A and B present conflicting evidence about nutrition and cancer risk; conflict within the same expert source - source A changes its own recommendation about the evidence; no conflict control) crossed by 1/2 baseline recommendations with which new information conflicted (limit vs. do not limit red meat intake to reduce cancer risk). RESULTS: Compared to the control, each conflicting information type led to lower perceived scientific consensus about how much red meat one should eat (p < .001); conflict in evidence (p = .004) and between sources (p = .006) led to lower trust in scientists. Intentions to consume red meat more frequently were higher in the conflicting information conditions than control in the group initially told to "limit red meat" and lower in the "do not limit red meat" group (p = .022). Conflict within the same source led to higher perceived scientific consensus compared to conflict in evidence (p = .007) and between sources (p = .013); it also lowered intentions to consume red meat more frequently compared to conflict in evidence, but only in the "do not limit red meat" condition (p = .033). Conflict in evidence (p = .007) and within the same source (p = .013) increased cancer fatalism compared to conflict between sources. CONCLUSIONS: Conflict in scientific evidence and conflict arising from the same expert source (e.g., a changing public health guideline) may have pernicious effects. Future efforts could investigate how best to publicly communicate these instances of scientific conflict to minimize negative impact.

Analysis of the components of cancer risk perception and links with intention and behaviour: A UK-based study.

Risk perception refers to how individuals interpret their susceptibility to threats, and has been hypothesised as an important predictor of intentions and behaviour in many theories of health behaviour change. However, its components, optimal measurement, and effects are not yet fully understood. The TRIRISK model, developed in the US, conceptualises risk perception as deliberative, affective and experiential components. In this study, we aimed to assess the replicability of the TRIRISK model in a UK sample by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), explore the inherent factor structure of risk perception in the UK sample by exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and assess the associations of EFA-based factors with intentions to change behaviour and subsequent behaviour change. Data were derived from an online randomised controlled trial assessing cancer risk perception using the TRIRISK instrument and intention and lifestyle measures before and after communication of cancer risk. In the CFA analysis, the TRIRISK model of risk perception did not provide a good fit for the UK data. A revised model developed using EFA consisted of two separate "numerical" and "self-reflective" factors of deliberative risk perception, and a third factor combining affective with a subset of experiential items. This model provided a better fit to the data when cross-validated. Using multivariable regression analysis, we found that the self-reflective and affective-experiential factors of the model identified in this study were reliable predictors of intentions to prevent cancer. There were no associations of any of the risk perception factors with behaviour change. This study confirms that risk perception is clearly a multidimensional construct, having identified self-reflective risk perception as a new distinct component with predictive validity for intention. Furthermore, we highlight the practical implications of our findings for the design of interventions incorporating risk perception aimed at behaviour change in the context of cancer prevention.

Decision-making about genetic health information among family dyads: a systematic literature review.

Decisions involving two individuals (i.e., dyadic decision-making) have been increasingly studied in healthcare research. There is evidence of bi-directional influences in decision-making processes among spousal, provider-patient and parent-child dyads. Genetic information can directly impact biologically related individuals. Thus, it is important to understand dyadic decision-making about genetic health information among family members. This systematic literature review aimed to identify literature examining decision-making among family dyads. Peer-reviewed publications were included if they reported quantitative empirical research on dyadic decision-making about genetic information, published between January 1998 and August 2020 and written in English. The search was conducted in 6 databases and returned 3167 articles, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were in the context of cancer genetic testing (n = 8) or reproductive testing or screening (n = 5). Studies reported two broad categories of decisions with dyadic influence: undergoing screening or testing (n = 10) and sharing information with family (n = 5). Factors were correlated between dyads such as attitudes, knowledge, behaviors and psychological wellbeing. Emerging evidence shows that dyad members influence each other when making decisions about receiving or sharing genetic information. Our findings emphasize the importance of considering both members of a dyad in intervention design and clinical interactions.

The role of future-oriented affect in engagement with genomic testing results.

Future-oriented emotions such as anticipatory affect (i.e., current affect experienced regarding a potential future outcome) and anticipated affect (i.e., expectations about potential future affect), are uniquely associated with health decision-making (e.g., electing to receive results of genomic testing). This study investigated the degree to which negative anticipated and anticipatory emotions predict health decision making over time, and whether such emotions predict social, emotional, and behavioral responses to anticipated information (e.g., genomic testing results). 461 participants (M age = 63.9, SD = 5.61, 46% female) in a genomic sequencing cohort who elected to receive genomic sequencing (carrier) results were included in the current study. Anticipated and anticipatory affect about sequencing results were assessed at baseline. Psychological and behavioral responses to sequencing results, including participants' reported anxiety, decisional conflict, and distress about sequencing results, whether they shared results with family members, and their intentions to continue learning results in the future, were collected immediately, one month, and/or six months after receiving results. More negative anticipated and anticipatory affect at baseline was significantly and independently associated with lower intentions to continue learning results in the future, as well as higher levels of anxiety and uncertainty at multiple time points after receiving results. Anticipated negative affect was also associated with greater decisional conflict, and anticipatory negative affect was also associated with greater distress after receiving results. Future-oriented emotions may play an important role in decisions that unfold over time, with implications for genomic testing, behavioral medicine, and health decision-making broadly.

Associations between absolute and relative electronic cigarette harm perceptions and information-seeking behaviours among US adult current, former and never smokers.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) harm perceptions and information seeking behaviours are both important antecedents of e-cigarette use, yet the relationship between them has been rarely studied. We assessed how absolute (e-cigarettes are harmful to my health) and relative harm perceptions (e-cigarettes are more/less harmful than cigarettes) were associated with specific e-cigarette information seeking behaviours in a sample of current, former and never cigarette smokers. METHODS: We used data from US adults in two cycles of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS-FDA 2015, n = 3738; 2017, n = 1736). Analyses controlled for socio-demographics, ever e-cigarette use and survey cycle. Data were analysed between January and August 2020. RESULTS: Higher relative harm perceptions were associated with lower odds of having sought any information on e-cigarettes [adjusted odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval (0.48, 0.84)] and on how to use e-cigarettes to quit smoking specifically [adjusted odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval (0.38, 0.91)]. Smoking status did not moderate associations between absolute or relative harm perceptions and information seeking behaviours, nor was it associated with specific information seeking behaviours after adjusting for covariates. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The risks of e-cigarettes relative to combusted cigarettes (as opposed to the absolute risks of e-cigarettes) appear to be more important in individuals' information seeking behaviours about e-cigarettes. Public health messages could ensure that all individuals understand how one's health risk would change if they exclusively used e-cigarettes, switched to e-cigarettes completely or used both products.

Self-affirmation inductions to reduce defensive processing of threatening health risk information.

OBJECTIVE: Self-affirmation reduces defensiveness toward threatening health messages. In this study, we compared several possible self-affirmation inductions in order to identify the most effective strategy. DESIGN: Women at increased risk for breast cancer (i.e. who drink 7+ drinks per week) were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (N = 1,056), randomly assigned to one of 11 self-affirmation conditions, and presented with an article about the link between alcohol intake and breast cancer risk. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants answered questions that measured key indices of message acceptance (risk perception, message endorsement), future alcohol consumption intentions, and action plans to reduce alcohol intake. RESULTS: Participants who affirmed health vs. non-health values did not differ in behavioral intentions or action plans to reduce alcohol intake. General values vs. health essay affirmations led to higher odds of reporting some vs. no action plans to reduce alcohol consumption. Essay- vs. questionnaire-based inductions led to higher breast cancer worry and intentions to reduce alcohol consumption. CONCLUSION: Overall, self-affirmation inductions that include an explicit focus on values (general or health-related) and self-generation of affirming thoughts through essay writing, are most potent in changing behavioral intentions and action plans to change future health behavior.

Smoking self-concept moderates the effects of self-affirmation on smoking-related beliefs and behavioral intentions.

OBJECTIVE: Smoking stigmatization has been shown to hinder cigarette smoking cessation, especially among individuals with a strong smoker identity. Self-affirmation, a psychological threat-management coping strategy, can promote smoking cessation, and may mitigate the adverse consequences of stigmatization. DESIGN: Data from an online sample of 1,020 U.S. adult smokers were analyzed using multiple linear regression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed a self-affirmation (or no-affirmation control) writing task before viewing a smoking stigma (or non-stigma control) anti-smoking public service announcement video. Participants then reported smoking-related cognitions and behavioral intentions. RESULTS: Among participants with strong-but not weak-ties to a smoker identity (smoking self-concept), self-affirming led to higher quit intentions compared to the control condition. Among participants with weak-but not strong-smoking self-concepts, those who self-affirmed had lower intentions to switch completely to e-cigarettes relative to the control condition. Exposure to stigmatization reduced intentions to seek cessation counseling, particularly among those with weak smoking self-concepts. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate the critical role that smoking identity centrality plays in moderating reactions to both affirming and stigmatizing stimuli. Additional research is needed to better understand how self-affirmation and stigma-reduction interventions can be tailored and implemented in natural contexts.

Patient Perspectives on the Risk-Based NLST Outcomes Tool for Lung Cancer Screening.

Researchers at the NCI have developed the Risk-Based NLST Outcomes Tool (RNOT), an online tool that calculates risk of lung cancer diagnosis and death with and without lung cancer screening, and false-positive risk estimates. This tool has the potential to facilitate shared decision making for screening. The objective of this study was to examine how current heavy and former smokers understand and respond to personalized risk estimates from the RNOT. Individuals who were eligible for lung cancer screening and were visiting Walter Reed National Military Medical Center were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview to assess their experiences with and perceptions of the RNOT. Results were analyzed using template analysis. Participants found their risk of lung cancer death to be lower than anticipated and were confused by changes in risk for lung cancer diagnosis with and without screening. Most participants indicated that the RNOT would be helpful in making screening decisions, despite reporting that there was no maximum risk for a false positive that would lead them to forgo lung cancer screening. Participants provided actionable needs and recommendations to optimize this tool. Risk-based screening tools may enhance shared decision making. The RNOT is being updated to incorporate these findings.