Implementing Decision Coaching for Lung Cancer Screening in the Low-Dose Computed Tomography Setting.

PURPOSE: The uptake of shared decision making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) as required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is suboptimal. Alternative models for delivering SDM are needed, such as decision coaching in the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Replicating Effective Programs framework guided our implementation of decision coaching, which included a patient-facilitated component before screening followed by in-person coaching that addressed the required elements for the SDM visit from CMS. We surveyed two LCS patient cohorts (pre-implementation and implementation of decision coaching) about their knowledge of LCS and perception of the SDM process. We conducted time-motion studies to assess the feasibility of implementing decision coaching and audio recorded clinical encounters from the implementation cohort to assess fidelity of the SDM conversation to the CMS requirements. RESULTS: Compared with the pre-implementation cohort (n = 51), the implementation cohort (n = 30) had greater knowledge of LCS (P < .01) and reported a better SDM process (P = .01). Coaching took 7.6 ± 4.1 minutes and did not increase visit time (P = .72). Coaches addressed an average of 6.4 of 7 SDM elements required by CMS. CONCLUSION: Decision coaching in the LDCT setting provides an opportunity for patients to confirm their screening decision by ensuring that patients are truly informed about the potential harms and benefits of LCS. The decision coaching had excellent fidelity in addressing the required SDM elements from CMS and is feasible.

A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids.

Introduction. Patient decision aid (PDA) certification standards recommend including the positive and negative features of each option of the decision. This review describes the inclusion of concepts related to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, negative features often ambiguously defined, in cancer screening PDAs. Methods. Our process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We reviewed 1) current systematic reviews of decision aids, 2) the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Decision Aid Library Inventory, and 3) a web-based, gray literature search. Two independent reviewers identified and evaluated PDAs using content analysis. Reviewers coded whether overdiagnosis/overtreatment was described as 1) detecting cancer that would not lead to death, 2) detecting cancer that would not cause symptoms, and/or 3) a potential harm or consequence of screening. Coding discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Results. A total of 904 records (e.g., articles, PDAs) were reviewed and 85 PDAs were identified: prostate (n = 36), breast (n = 26), lung (n = 10), colorectal (n = 10), and other (n = 3). Sixty-seven PDAs included concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment; 57 (67.1%) used a term other than overdiagnosis/overtreatment, 23 (27.1%) used the specific term "overdiagnosis," and 13 (15.3%) used "overtreatment." PDAs described overdiagnosis/overtreatment as a potential harm or consequence of screening (n = 62) and/or a detection of a cancer that would not cause symptoms (n = 49). Thirty-six described overdiagnosis as the detection of a cancer that would not result in death. Twenty PDAs described the probabilities associated with overdiagnosis/overtreatment. Conclusions. Over three quarters of cancer screening PDAs addressed concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment, yet terminology was inconsistent and few included probability estimates. Consistent terminology and minimum standards to describe overdiagnosis/overtreatment would help guide the design and certification of cancer screening PDAs.