Adapting Community Educational Programs During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparing the Feasibility and Efficacy of a Lung Cancer Screening Educational Intervention by Mode of Delivery.

Few eligible patients receive lung cancer screening. We developed the Lung AIR (awareness, information, and resources) intervention to increase community education regarding lung cancer screening. The intervention was designed as an in-person group intervention; however, the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated adapting the mode of delivery. In this study we examined intervention feasibility and efficacy overall and by mode of delivery (in-person group vs. one-on-one phone) to understand the impact of adapting community outreach and engagement strategies. Feasibility was examined through participant demographics. Efficacy was measured through pre/post knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about lung cancer screening, and intention to complete screening. We reached N = 292 participants. Forty percent had a household income below $35,000, 58% had a high school degree or less, 40% were Hispanic, 57% were Black, and 84% reported current or past smoking. One-on-one phone sessions reached participants who were older, had lower incomes, more current smoking, smoked for more years, more cigarettes per day, lower pre-intervention lung cancer screening knowledge, and higher pre-intervention fear and worry. Overall pre/post test scores show significant increases in knowledge, salience, and coherence, and reduced fear and worry. Participants in the one-on-one phone sessions had significantly higher increases in salience and coherence and intention to complete screening compared to participants in the in-person group sessions. The Lung AIR intervention is a feasible and effective community-based educational intervention for lung cancer screening. Findings point to differences in reach and efficacy of the community-based intervention by mode of delivery.

Differences in demographics and behaviors across two web-based survey platforms: Observations from a study of risk perceptions of heated tobacco products (HTPs).

With an escalating popularity of online surveys in behavioral research, it is critical to understand how different sources of participants can yield differing outcomes. While Mturk has been used for online surveys for almost two decades, a recent introduction of online panels allows researchers to choose participants from variety of pools. This study aims to contribute to existing knowledge of how participants from different online platforms differ in their characteristics and behavioral responses which might affect the outcomes. 300 participants were recruited each from Mturk and Prime panels for a 20 mins long survey assessing perceptions and intentions to use Heated tobacco products (HTPs). Participants answered demographic and tobacco-use related questions including their vaccination and masking for COVID-19. They were shown a picture and description of a recently launched HTP. Further, participants answered questions about their awareness of HTPs, risk perception of health conditions from use of different tobacco products (cigarettes, e-cigarettes and HTPs) and perceived severity of COVID-19 infection in smokers, vapers and HTP users. Results showed significant differences in Mturk and Prime panel participants' demographics and tobacco-use. Prime panels showed more racially diverse population (chi-sq = 10.07, p < 0.02) and significantly more current smokers (chi-sq = 44.74, p < 0.01) and current e-cigarette users (chi-sq = 38.04, p < 0.01) compared with Mturk. Mean perception scores for COVID risk in tobacco users were significantly different between Prime panels and Mturk. Study highlights significant differences in sample composition and responses that might be helpful in choosing one online platform over another based on specific study requirements.