Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement.

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

Assessment of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility on NCI-Designated Cancer Center Websites.

Online lung cancer screening assessments empower patients to learn about their risk for lung cancer and eligibility for screening. However, it is unknown whether these online assessments provide tailored recommendations that are consistent with national guidelines and include information to prepare patients for shared decision-making (SDM) consultations with their healthcare provider. In November 2019, we reviewed 71 NCI-Designated Cancer Center websites to identify US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer screening eligibility and evidence-based features of shared decision-making (SDM). Only 11% of the websites included an online lung cancer screening assessment. Most assessments included tailored recommendations for screening eligibility based on USPSTF guidelines. Assessments designed to support SDM included both potential benefits and harms of undergoing lung cancer screening. Nearly all assessments directed adults to discuss the results with their healthcare provider and reinforced the importance of living a tobacco-free lifestyle. Online lung cancer screening assessments have the potential to put patients in control of knowledge about their lung cancer risk and screening eligibility. While nearly all assessments recommend patients to speak with their healthcare provider about their risk for lung cancer, patients may require more support to initiate and navigate SDM conversations with their providers.

Training oncology care providers in the assessment and treatment of tobacco use and dependence.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines for promoting smoking cessation in cancer care exist; however, most oncology settings have not established tobacco use assessment and treatment as standard care. Inadequate staff training and other implementation challenges have been identified as barriers for delivery of evidence-based tobacco treatment. Providing training in tobacco treatment tailored to the unique needs of tobacco-dependent patients with cancer is one strategy to improve adoption of best practices to promote smoking cessation in cancer care. METHODS: A tobacco treatment training program for oncology care providers (tobacco treatment training-oncology [TTT-O]) consisting of a 2-day didactic and experiential workshop followed by 6 monthly, collaboratory videoconference calls supporting participants in their efforts to implement National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in their oncology settings was developed and implemented. This article presents preliminary results on program evaluation, changes in participants' self-efficacy, and progress in implementing tobacco treatment. RESULTS: Data have been obtained from the first 5 cohorts of TTT-O participants (n = 110) who completed training, course evaluations, baseline and follow-up surveys. Participants rated the training as highly favorable and reported significant gains in self-efficacy in their ability to assess and treat tobacco dependence. Participants also demonstrated significant improvements in tobacco treatment skills and implementation of several indicators of improved adoption of best practices for tobacco treatment in their cancer care settings. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of tobacco treatment training for cancer care providers is feasible, acceptable, and can have a significant positive impact on participants' tobacco treatment skills, self-efficacy, and greater adoption of tobacco treatment delivery in cancer care.

Addressing Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Healthcare Access. An Official American Thoracic Society Statement.

Background: There are well-documented disparities in lung cancer outcomes across populations. Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but for this benefit to be realized by all high-risk groups, there must be careful attention to ensuring equitable access to this lifesaving preventive health measure.Objectives: To outline current knowledge on disparities in eligibility criteria for, access to, and implementation of LCS, and to develop an official American Thoracic Society statement to propose strategies to optimize current screening guidelines and resource allocation for equitable LCS implementation and dissemination.Methods: A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in LCS, implementation science, primary care, pulmonology, health behavior, smoking cessation, epidemiology, and disparities research was convened. Participants reviewed available literature on historical disparities in cancer screening and emerging evidence of disparities in LCS.Results: Existing LCS guidelines do not consider racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex-based differences in smoking behaviors or lung cancer risk. Multiple barriers, including access to screening and cost, further contribute to the inequities in implementation and dissemination of LCS.Conclusions: This statement identifies the impact of LCS eligibility criteria on vulnerable populations who are at increased risk of lung cancer but do not meet eligibility criteria for screening, as well as multiple barriers that contribute to disparities in LCS implementation. Strategies to improve the selection and dissemination of LCS in vulnerable groups are described.

Disparities in knowledge and use of tobacco treatment among smokers in California following healthcare reform.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) promised to narrow smoking disparities by expanding access to healthcare and mandating comprehensive coverage for tobacco treatment starting in 2014. We examined whether two years after ACA implementation disparities in receiving clinician advice to quit and smokers' knowledge and use of treatment resources remained. We conducted telephone interviews in 2016 with a stratified random sample of self-reported smokers newly enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California's (KPNC) integrated healthcare delivery system in 2014 (N = 491; 50% female; 53% non-white; 6% Spanish language). We used Poisson regression with robust standard errors to test whether sociodemographics, insurance type, comorbidities, smoking status in 2016 (former, light/nondaily [<5 cigarettes per day], daily), and preferred language (English or Spanish) were associated with receiving clinician advice to quit and knowledge and use of tobacco treatment. We included an interaction between smoking status and language to test whether the relation between smoking status and key outcomes varied with preferred language. Overall, 80% of respondents received clinician advice to quit, 84% knew that KPNC offers cessation counseling, 54% knew that cessation pharmacotherapy is free, 54% used pharmacotherapy, and 6% used counseling. In multivariate models, Spanish-speaking light/nondaily smokers had significantly lower rates of all outcomes, while there was no association with other demographic and clinical characteristics. Following ACA implementation, most smokers newly enrolled in KPNC received clinician advice to quit and over half used pharmacotherapy, yet counseling utilization was low. Spanish-language outreach efforts and treatment services are recommended, particularly for adults who are light/nondaily smokers.

Disparities in the Receipt of Tobacco Treatment Counseling within the US Context of the Affordable Care Act and Meaningful Use Implementation.

Introduction: Disparities in receiving advice to quit smoking and other tobacco use from health professionals may contribute to the continuing gap in smoking prevalence among priority populations. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), beginning in 2010, tobacco cessation services are currently covered in private and public health insurance plans. Providers and hospitals are also incentivized through the Meaningful Use of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to screen and document patients' tobacco use and deliver brief cessation counseling. This study analyzes trends and correlates of receiving health professionals' advice to quit and potential disparities among US adult smokers from 2010 to 2015. Methods: Data were from the National Health Interview Survey in 2010 and 2015. We analyzed the weighted prevalence of smokers' receipt of advice to quit smoking and other tobacco use from a health professional in 2010 and 2015 and correlates of receiving advice to quit. Results: Prevalence of receiving advice to quit from a health professional increased from 51.4% in 2010 to 60.6% in 2015. This positive trend was observed across tobacco disparity population groups. Survey year (2015), age (older), ethnicity (non-Hispanic), region (Northeast), poverty level (above 100% poverty level), past quit attempt, daily smoking, cigarettes per day (11+ per day), and psychological distress were associated with higher odds of receiving advice to quit. Conclusion: Based on national level data, receipt of advice to quit from health professionals increased between 2010 and 2015. However, disparities in receiving advice to quit from health professionals persist in certain populations. Implications: This study provides important data on the national trends in receipt of health professional advice to quit smoking and other tobacco use in the context of the ACA and Meaningful Use implementation and whether these policies helped to narrow the gaps in receipt of health professional advice among vulnerable populations.

Multilevel Barriers to the Successful Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening: Why Does It Have to Be So Hard?

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for long-term current and former smokers. However, lung cancer screening and its implementation are a complex issue. Screening has associated risks and potential harms that complicate the decision to screen for the patient, add to the already time-constrained clinical encounter for the provider, and present logistical and sociopolitical challenges in creating and implementing lung cancer screening programs in the health care system. As lung cancer screening is more widely implemented in the United States, it is critical for those in the health care system to be cognizant of potential barriers to effective screening implementation at the patient, provider, and system levels when designing effective support interventions, as well as to proactively address potential impediments to this new screening option. This paper presents perspectives on these multilevel barriers to lung cancer screening.

A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening.

Background: Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography is relatively new for long-term smokers in the USA supported by a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation. As screening programs are more widely implemented nationally and providers engage patients about lung cancer screening, it is critical to understand behaviour among high-risk smokers who opt out to improve shared decision-making processes for lung cancer screening. Objective: The purpose of this study was to explore the reasons for screening-eligible patients' decisions to opt out of screening after receiving a provider recommendation. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were performed with 18 participants who met lung cancer screening criteria for age, smoking and pack-year history in Washington State from November 2015 to January 2016. Two researchers with cancer screening and qualitative methodology expertise conducted data analysis using thematic content analytic procedures from audio-recorded interviews. Results: Five primary themes emerged for reasons of opting out of lung cancer screening: (i) Knowledge Avoidance; (ii) Perceived Low Value; (iii) False-Positive Worry; (iv) Practical Barriers; and (v) Patient Misunderstanding. Conclusion: The participants in our study provided insight into why some patients make the decision to opt out of low-dose computed tomography screening, which provides knowledge that can inform intervention development to enhance shared decision-making processes between long-term smokers and their providers and decrease decisional conflict about screening.

Society of Behavioral Medicine supports implementation of high quality lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.

The Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) supports the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening of the chest for eligible populations to reduce lung cancer mortality. Consistent with efforts to translate research findings into real-world settings, SBM encourages health-care providers and health-care systems to (1) integrate evidence-based tobacco treatment as an essential component of LDCT-based lung cancer screening, (2) examine the structural barriers that may impact screening uptake, and (3) incorporate shared decision-making as a clinical platform to facilitate consultations and engagement with individuals at high risk for lung cancer about the potential benefits and harms associated with participation in a lung cancer screening program. We advise policy makers and legislators to support screening in high-risk populations by continuing to (1) expand access to high quality LDCT-based screening among underserved high-risk populations, (2) enhance cost-effectiveness by integrating evidence-based tobacco treatments into screening in high-risk populations, and (3) increase funding for research that explores implementation science and increased public awareness and access of diverse populations to participate in clinical and translational research.