Patient Perspectives on Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening, New Mexico, 2014.

INTRODUCTION: National guidelines call for annual lung cancer screening for high-risk smokers using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). The objective of our study was to characterize patient knowledge and attitudes about lung cancer screening, smoking cessation, and shared decision making by patient and health care provider. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with patients with histories of heavy smoking who received care at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC Clinic) and at a comprehensive cancer center-affiliated chest clinic (Chest Clinic) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The interviews, conducted from February through September 2014, focused on perceptions about health screening, knowledge and attitudes about LDCT screening, and preferences regarding decision aids. We used a systematic iterative analytic process to identify preliminary and emergent themes and to create a coding structure. RESULTS: We reached thematic saturation after 22 interviews (10 at the FQHC Clinic, 12 at the Chest Clinic). Most patients were unaware of LDCT screening for lung cancer but were receptive to the test. Some smokers said they would consider quitting smoking if their screening result were positive. Concerns regarding screening were cost, radiation exposure, and transportation issues. To support decision making, most patients said they preferred one-on-one discussions with a provider. They also valued decision support tools (print materials, videos), but raised concerns about readability and Internet access. CONCLUSION: Implementing lung cancer screening in sociodemographically diverse populations poses significant challenges. The value of tobacco cessation counseling cannot be overemphasized. Effective interventions for shared decision making to undergo lung cancer screening will need the active engagement of health care providers and will require the use of accessible decision aids designed for people with low health literacy.

Attitudes and Beliefs of Primary Care Providers in New Mexico About Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography.

INTRODUCTION: On the basis of results from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), national guidelines now recommend using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen high-risk smokers for lung cancer. Our study objective was to characterize the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of primary care providers about implementing LDCT screening. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with primary care providers practicing in New Mexico clinics for underserved minority populations. The interviews, conducted from February through September 2014, focused on providers' tobacco cessation efforts, lung cancer screening practices, perceptions of NLST and screening guidelines, and attitudes about informed decision making for cancer screening. Investigators iteratively reviewed transcripts to create a coding structure. RESULTS: We reached thematic saturation after interviewing 10 providers practicing in 6 urban and 4 rural settings; 8 practiced at federally qualified health centers. All 10 providers promoted smoking cessation, some screened with chest x-rays, and none screened with LDCT. Not all were aware of NLST results or current guideline recommendations. Providers viewed study results skeptically, particularly the 95% false-positive rate, the need to screen 320 patients to prevent 1 lung cancer death, and the small proportion of minority participants. Providers were uncertain whether New Mexico had the necessary infrastructure to support high-quality screening, and worried about access barriers and financial burdens for rural, underinsured populations. Providers noted the complexity of discussing benefits and harms of screening and surveillance with their patient population. CONCLUSION: Providers have several concerns about the feasibility and appropriateness of implementing LDCT screening. Effective lung cancer screening programs will need to educate providers and patients to support informed decision making and to ensure that high-quality screening can be efficiently delivered in community practice.

Standard compared with mnemonic counseling for fecal incontinence: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether women who underwent mnemonic counseling had better recall of fecal incontinence therapies at 2 months and if mnemonic counseling resulted in greater satisfaction with physician counseling and improvement in quality of life when compared with a group who underwent standard counseling. METHODS: Counseling-naive women with fecal incontinence were recruited from an academic urogynecology clinic. Women underwent physical examinations, completed the Quality of the Physician-Patient Interaction, recorded fecal incontinence treatment options they recalled, and completed the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index and Manchester Health Questionnaire immediately after counseling and again at 2 months. RESULTS: Ninety women consented to participate, were randomized, and completed baseline questionnaires. At baseline, women did not differ in age, ethnicity, education, Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, or Manchester Health Questionnaire scores. After counseling, the mnemonic group reported higher satisfaction on Quality of the Physician-Patient Interaction (66.4±6.5 compared with 62.2±10.7, P=.03). Ninety percent (81/90) of women followed up at 2 months. Our primary endpoint, 2-month recall of fecal incontinence treatments, was not different between groups (2.3±1.6 mnemonic counseling compared with 1.8±1.0 standard counseling; P=.08). Secondary endpoints for the mnemonic group reported greater improvement on total Manchester Health Questionnaire (P=.02), emotional (P=.03), sleep (0.045), role limitations (P<.01), and physical limitations (P=.04) when compared with the standard group. CONCLUSION: Fecal incontinence counseling with a mnemonic aid did not improve recall at 2 months but improved patient satisfaction and quality of life at 2 months.