Prevalence of Lung Cancer Screening Among Eligible Adults in 4 US States in 2021.

This cross-sectional study estimates the prevalence of lung cancer screening among eligible adults in 2021 and examines factors associated with screening.

A protocol for a cluster randomized trial of care delivery models to improve the quality of smoking cessation and shared decision making for lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Patients eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) are those at high risk of lung cancer due to their smoking histories and age. While screening for LCS is effective in lowering lung cancer mortality, primary care providers are challenged to meet beneficiary eligibility for LCS from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, including a patient counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit with the use of patient decision aid(s) prior to screening. METHODS: We will use an effectiveness-implementation type I hybrid design to: 1) identify effective, scalable smoking cessation counseling and SDM interventions that are consistent with recommendations, can be delivered on the same platform, and are implemented in real-world clinical settings; 2) examine barriers and facilitators of implementing the two approaches to delivering smoking cessation and SDM for LCS; and 3) determine the economic implications of implementation by assessing the healthcare resources required to increase smoking cessation for the two approaches by delivering smoking cessation within the context of LCS. Providers from different healthcare organizations will be randomized to usual care (providers delivering smoking cessation and SDM on site) vs. centralized care (smoking cessation and SDM delivered remotely by trained counselors). The primary trial outcomes will include smoking abstinence at 12-weeks and knowledge about LCS measured at 1-week after baseline. CONCLUSION: This study will provide important new evidence about the effectiveness and feasibility of a novel care delivery model for addressing the leading cause of lung cancer deaths and supporting high-quality decisions about LCS. GOV PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: NCT04200534 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04200534.

Cultural influences on shared decision-making among Asian Americans: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize how Asian Americans negotiate involvement in shared decision-making (SDM) with their providers, the cultural influences on SDM, and perceived barriers and facilitators to SDM. METHODS: This is a systematic review of qualitative studies. We searched six electronic databases and sources of gray literature until March 2021. Two reviewers independently screened studies, performed quality appraisal, and data extraction. Meta-synthesis was performed to summarize themes using a three-step approach. RESULTS: Twenty studies with 675 participants were included. We abstracted 275 initial codes and grouped these into 19 subthemes and 4 major themes: (1) negotiating power and differing expectations in SDM; (2) cultural influences on SDM; (3) importance of social support in SDM; and (4) supportive factors for facilitating SDM. CONCLUSIONS: Asian Americans have important perspectives, needs, and preferences regarding SDM that impacts how they engage with the provider on medical decisions and their perception of the quality of their care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Asian American patients valued good communication and sufficient time with their provider, and that it is important for health professionals to understand patients' desired level of involvement in the SDM process and in the final decision, and who should be involved in SDM beyond the patient. OTHER: This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021241665).

Impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening update on drivers of disparities in screening eligibility.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated its recommendation to expand lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility and mitigate disparities. Although this increased the number of non-White individuals who are eligible for LCS, the update's impact on drivers of disparities is less clear. This analysis focuses on racial disparities among Black individuals because members of this group disproportionately share late-stage lung cancer diagnoses, despite typically having a lower intensity smoking history compared to non-Hispanic White individuals. METHODS: We used data from the National Health Interview Survey to examine the impact of the 2021 eligibility criteria on racial disparities by factors such as education, poverty, employment history, and insurance status. We also examined preventive care use and reasons for delaying medical care. RESULTS: When comparing Black individuals and non-Hispanic White individuals, our analyses show significant differences in who would be eligible for LCS: Those who do not have a high school diploma (28.7% vs. 17.0%, p = 0.002), are in poverty (26.2% vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001), and have not worked in the past 12 months (66.5% vs. 53.9%, p = 0.009). Further, our analyses also show that more Black individuals delayed medical care due to not having transportation (11.1% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001) compared to non-Hispanic White individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that despite increasing the number of Black individuals who are eligible for LCS, the 2021 USPSTF recommendation highlights ongoing socioeconomic disparities that need to be addressed to ensure equitable access.

Effects of technology-based contraceptive decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of technology-based decision aids on contraceptive use, continuation, and patient-reported and decision-making outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted in OVID MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX databases from January 2005 to April 2022. Eligible references from a concurrent systematic review evaluating contraceptive care were also included for review. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if a contraceptive decision aid was technology-based (ie, mobile/tablet application, web, or computer-based) and assessed contraceptive use and/or continuation or patient-reported outcomes (knowledge, self-efficacy, feasibility/acceptability/usability, decisional conflict). The protocol was registered under the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021240755). METHODS: Three reviewers independently performed data abstraction and quality appraisal. Dichotomous outcomes (use and continuation) were evaluated with an odds ratio, whereas continuous outcomes (knowledge and self-efficacy) were evaluated with the mean difference. Subgroup analyses were performed for the mode of delivery (mobile and tablet applications vs web and computer-based) and follow-up time (immediate vs >1 month). RESULTS: This review included 18 studies evaluating 21 decision aids. Overall, there were higher odds of contraceptive use and/or continuation among decision aid users compared with controls (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, [1.05-1.55]). Use of computer and web-based decision aids was associated with higher odds of contraceptive use and/or continuation (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, [1.08-1.72]) than mobile and tablet decision aids (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, [0.83-1.94]). Decision aid users also had statistically significant higher self-efficacy scores (mean difference, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, [0.05-0.13]), and knowledge scores (mean difference, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, [0.01-0.07]), with immediate measurement of knowledge having higher retention than measurement after 1 month. Other outcomes were evaluated descriptively (eg, feasibility, applicability, decisional conflict) but had little evidence to support a definite conclusion. Overall, the review provided moderate-level evidence for contraceptive use and continuation, knowledge, and self-efficacy. CONCLUSION: The use of technology-based contraceptive decision aids to support contraceptive decision-making has positive effects on contraceptive use and continuation, knowledge, and self-efficacy. There was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion about effects on other decision-making outcomes.

Are beliefs about the importance of genetics for cancer prevention and early detection associated with high risk cancer genetic testing in the U.S. Population?

Public attitudes towards germline genetic testing for inherited cancers have been found to be generally positive. Past research demonstrated that diverse causal beliefs and contextual factors are associated with uptake of genetic testing. However, it is unclear how beliefs about genetically informed cancer prevention and early detection ultimately shape testing behaviors. We used data from the National Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5 Cycle 4) to evaluate these beliefs and the relationship between beliefs related to cancer genetics and participation in cancer genetic testing. Overall, 5.24% of the total weighted sample underwent cancer genetic testing, of whom 70.5% (n = 141) had no personal history of cancer, whereas others had a personal diagnosis of breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer (23.0%), or other cancers (6.5%). In adjusted multivariable analysis, testing was positively associated with personal history of breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer (OR = 28.37, 95% CI: 10.19-79.04), female sex (OR = 2.97, 95% CI: 1.41-6.26), having high cancer worry (OR = 4.78, 95%: 2.19-10.45), and negatively associated with being Hispanic (OR = 0.37, 95%: 0.16-0.86) or non-Hispanic Asian (OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04-0.33). Belief in the importance of genetics for early detection of cancer was associated with testing (OR = 18.03, 95% CI: 4.07-79.79), whereas belief in the importance of genetics for cancer prevention was not. The association between testing and belief about the importance of genetics for early detection of cancer, but not cancer prevention, is a surprising finding that warrants further research. Better understanding of these beliefs and their potential impact on test uptake may inform population genetic testing efforts.

Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: The 2013 update of the evidence informing the quality dimensions behind the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) offered a model process for developers of patient decision aids. OBJECTIVE: To summarize and update the evidence used to inform the systematic development of patient decision aids from the IPDAS Collaboration. METHODS: To provide further details about design and development methods, we summarized findings from a subgroup (n = 283 patient decision aid projects) in a recent systematic review of user involvement by Vaisson et al. Using a new measure of user-centeredness (UCD-11), we then rated the degree of user-centeredness reported in 66 articles describing patient decision aid development and citing the 2013 IPDAS update on systematic development. We contacted the 66 articles' authors to request their self-reports of UCD-11 items. RESULTS: The 283 development processes varied substantially from minimal iteration cycles to more complex processes, with multiple iterations, needs assessments, and extensive involvement of end users. We summarized minimal, medium, and maximal processes from the data. Authors of 54 of 66 articles (82%) provided self-reported UCD-11 ratings. Self-reported scores were significantly higher than reviewer ratings (reviewers: mean [SD] = 6.45 [3.10]; authors: mean [SD] = 9.62 [1.16], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Decision aid developers have embraced principles of user-centered design in the development of patient decision aids while also underreporting aspects of user involvement in publications about their tools. Templates may reduce the need for extensive development, and new approaches for rapid development of aids have been proposed when a more detailed approach is not feasible. We provide empirically derived benchmark processes and a reporting checklist to support developers in more fully describing their development processes.[Box: see text].

Examining lung cancer screening utilization with public-use data: Opportunities and challenges.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography is recommended for high-risk smokers who meet specific eligibility criteria. Current guidelines suggest that eligible adults with a heavy smoking history will benefit from annual low dose computed tomography but due to several associated risks (e.g., false-positives, radiation exposure, overdiagnosis) a shared decision-making consultation is required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and endorsed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. In order to examine potential for tracking LCS uptake, adherence, and patient-provider communication at a national level, we reviewed four regularly publicly available national surveys (National Health Interview Survey [NHIS], Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System [BRFSS], National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES], and Health Information National Trends Survey [HINTS]) to assess available data; an overview of 37 publications using these sources is also provided. The results show that none of the surveys include items that fully assess current LCS guidelines. Implications for future research-including the potential to examine factors associated with LCS uptake and patient-provider communication-are addressed.

Smoking cessation and shared decision-making practices about lung cancer screening among primary care providers.

OBJECTIVE: We describe primary care providers' current practice patterns related to smoking cessation counseling and lung cancer screening (LCS). METHODS: Family, internal medicine, and pulmonary medicine providers from two medical centers were asked to complete an electronic survey to report their practice patterns. RESULTS: Of 52 participating providers, most reported initiating three major components of a smoking cessation intervention often or very often: advise to quit (50, 96%), assess willingness to quit (47, 90%), and assist with counseling or pharmacotherapy (49, 94%). However, other components were less commonly initiated such as arranging follow-ups (only 11 providers indicated recommending them often or very often, 21%) and less than half of providers reported that they often or very often recommend cessation counseling or pharmacotherapy of any type (except varenicline), though family medicine providers were more likely to recommend pharmacotherapy compared to the other specialists (p < 0.01). The majority of providers (47, 92%) reported that they engage in informed/shared decision-making about LCS, although only about one-third (17, 33%) indicated using a patient decision aid. Pulmonary medicine providers were more likely to use decision aids than providers from internal or family medicine (p < 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of LCS, primary care providers report often having conversations about smoking cessation with their patients who smoke, have no clear preference for type of treatment, and rarely use follow-up calls or visits pertaining to quitting smoking. While many providers report engaging in shared decision-making about LCS, few use a decision aid for this conversation.

Factors Associated With Obtaining Lung Cancer Screening Among Persons Who Smoke.

Background. Screening with low-dose computed tomography scans can reduce lung cancer deaths but uptake remains low. This study examines psychosocial factors associated with obtaining lung cancer screening (LCS) among individuals. Methods. This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial conducted with 13 state quitlines' clients. Participants who met age and smoking history criteria were enrolled and followed-up for 6 months. Only participants randomized to the intervention group (a patient decision aid) were included in this analysis. A logistic regression was performed to identify determinants of obtaining LCS 6 months after the intervention. Results. There were 204 participants included in this study. Regarding individual attitudes, high and moderate levels of concern about overdiagnosis were associated with a decreased likelihood of obtaining LCS compared with lower levels of concern (high levels of concern, odds ratio [OR] 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.65; moderate levels of concern, OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.53). In contrast, higher levels of anticipated regret about not obtaining LCS and later being diagnosed with lung cancer were associated with an increased likelihood of being screened compared with lower levels of anticipated regret (OR 5.59, 95% CI 1.72-18.10). Other potential harms related to LCS were not significant. Limitations. Follow-up may not have been long enough for all individuals who wished to be screened to complete the scan. Additionally, participants may have been more health motivated due to recruitment via tobacco quitlines. Conclusions. Anticipated regret about not obtaining screening is associated with screening behavior, whereas concern about overdiagnosis is associated with decreased likelihood of LCS. Implications. Decision support research may benefit from further examining anticipated regret in screening decisions. Additional training and information may be helpful to address concerns regarding overdiagnosis.

Patient Adherence to Screening for Lung Cancer in the US: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: To be effective in reducing deaths from lung cancer among high-risk current and former smokers, screening with low-dose computed tomography must be performed periodically. Objective: To examine lung cancer screening (LCS) adherence rates reported in the US, patient characteristics associated with adherence, and diagnostic testing rates after screening. Data Sources: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for articles published in the English language from January 1, 2011, through February 28, 2020. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently selected prospective and retrospective cohort studies from 95 potentially relevant studies reporting patient LCS adherence. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality assessment. A random-effects model meta-analysis was conducted when at least 2 studies reported on the same outcome. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was LCS adherence after a baseline screening. Secondary measures were the patient characteristics associated with adherence and the rate of diagnostic testing after screening. Results: Fifteen studies with a total of 16 863 individuals were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled LCS adherence rate across all follow-up periods (range, 12-36 months) was 55% (95% CI, 44%-66%). Regarding patient characteristics associated with adherence rates, current smokers were less likely to adhere to LCS than former smokers (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.80); White patients were more likely to adhere to LCS than patients of races other than White (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.6-2.6); people 65 to 73 years of age were more likely to adhere to LCS than people 50 to 64 years of age (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9); and completion of 4 or more years of college was also associated with increased adherence compared with people not completing college (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1). Evidence was insufficient to evaluate diagnostic testing rates after abnormal screening scan results. The main source of variation was attributable to the eligibility criteria for screening used across studies. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the pooled LCS adherence rate after a baseline screening was far lower than those observed in large randomized clinical trials of screening. Interventions to promote adherence to screening should prioritize current smokers and smokers from minority populations.

Social Support, Strain, and Glycemic Control: A Path Analysis.

Social support and strain have been linked with many health outcomes. However, less is known about whether these psychosocial factors are associated with Type 2 diabetes risk. This study uses the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) dataset to examine the relationship between social support and strain from friends, family members, and spouse/partners and blood hemoglobin A1c levels in married/cohabiting adults who have not been diagnosed with diabetes. In addition, health locus of control is examined as a possible mediator. The study's findings suggest that support from friends is negatively associated with HbA1c levels, indicating a relationship between better glycemic control and social support from friends, and an indirect association for spouse/partner support. A direct effect for internal health locus of control was also found.