Longitudinal Assessment of Communication with Patient-Reported Outcomes During Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Many organizations recommend clinicians use structured communication processes, referred to as "shared decision making," to improve patient-reported outcomes for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS). RESEARCH QUESTION: Which components of high-quality patient-centered communication are associated with decision regret and distress? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, longitudinal, repeated measures, cohort study among patients undergoing lung cancer screening in three different healthcare systems. We surveyed participants using validated measures of decision regret, decision satisfaction, distress, and patient-clinician communication domains up to a year after the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for LCS. For longitudinal analyses, we applied a series of generalized estimating equations to measure the association of the "patient as person" communication domain, screening knowledge, and decision concordance with decision regret and distress. RESULTS: When assessed 2-4 weeks after the LDCT, 202 (58.9%) and 8 (2.3%) of 343 total respondents reported mild and moderate/severe decision regret, respectively, while 29 (9.2%) participants of 315 total reported mild distress and 19 (6.0%) moderate or greater distress. The mean ± SD decision satisfaction scores (0 to 10 scale) were 9.82 ± 0.89, 9.08 ± 1.54, and 6.13 ± 3.40 among those with no, mild, and moderate/severe regret respectively. Distress scores remained low after the LDCT, even among those with nodules. Patient-centered communication domains were not associated with decision regret or distress. INTERPRETATION: Patients undergoing LCS rarely experience moderate or greater decision regret and distress. Although many participants reported mild decision regret, most were very satisfied over the year after their LDCT for LCS. Communication processes were not associated with regret and distress, suggesting that it may be challenging for communication interventions to reduce the harms of LCS.

Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Author Sex and Manuscript Acceptance Rates among Pulmonary and Critical Care Journals.

Rationale: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively affected women more than men and may influence the publication of non-COVID-19 research. Objectives: To evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with changes in manuscript acceptance rates among pulmonary/critical care journals and sex-based disparities in these rates. Methods: We analyzed first, senior, and corresponding author sex (female vs. male, identified by matching first names in a validated Genderize database) of manuscripts submitted to four pulmonary/critical care journals between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. We constructed interrupted time series regression models to evaluate whether the proportion of female first and senior authors of non-COVID-19 original research manuscripts changed with the pandemic. Next, we performed multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate the association of author sex with acceptance of original research manuscripts. Results: Among 8,332 original research submissions, women represented 39.9% and 28.3% of first and senior authors, respectively. We found no change in the proportion of female first or senior authors of non-COVID-19 or COVID-19 submitted research manuscripts during the COVID-19 era. Non-COVID-19 manuscripts submitted during the COVID-19 era had reduced odds of acceptance, regardless of author sex (first author adjusted OR [aOR], 0.46 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.36-0.59]; senior author aOR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37-0.57]). Female senior authorship was associated with decreased acceptance of non-COVID-19 research manuscripts (crude rates, 14.4% [male] vs. 13.2% [female]; aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-0.99]). Conclusions: Although female author submissions were not disproportionately influenced by COVID-19, we found evidence suggesting sex disparities in manuscript acceptance rates. Journals may need to consider strategies to reduce this disparity, and academic institutions may need to factor our findings, including lower acceptance rates for non-COVID-19 manuscripts, into promotion decisions.

Association of Patient-Centered Elements of Care and Palliative Care Among Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer.

CONTEXT: Palliative care (PC) is associated with improved quality of life, survival, and decreased healthcare use at the end of life among lung cancer patients. However, the specific elements of palliative care that may contribute to these benefits are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the associations of PC and its setting of delivery with prescriptions of symptom management medications, advance care planning (ACP), hospice enrollment, and home health care (HHC) receipt. METHODS: Retrospective, cohort study of patients with advanced stage (IIIB/IV) lung cancer in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) diagnosed from 2007-2013; with follow-up through 2017. Propensity score methods were used with inverse probability of treatment weighting and logistic regression modeling, adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Among 23 142 patients, 57% received PC. Compared to non-receipt of PC, PC in any setting (inpatient or outpatient) was associated with increased prescriptions of pain medications (Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.45-1.83), constipation regimen with pain medications (aOR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.63-2.54), and antidepressants (aOR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.52-2.09). PC was also associated with increased ACP (aOR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.37-1.67) and hospice enrollment (aOR = 1.39, 95% CI:1.31-1.47), and decreased HHC (aOR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.70-.90) compared to non-receipt of PC. Receipt of PC in outpatient settings was associated with increased prescriptions of pain medications (aOR = 2.54, 95% CI: 2.13-3.04) and antidepressants (aOR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.46-2.12), and hospice enrollment (aOR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.90-2.31) compared to receipt of PC in inpatient settings. CONCLUSIONS: PC is associated with increased use of symptom management medications, ACP, and hospice enrollment, especially when delivered in outpatient settings. These elements of care elucidate potential mechanisms for improved outcomes associated with PC and provide a framework for a primary palliative care approach among non-palliative care clinicians.

"It's a decision I have to make": Patient perspectives on smoking and cessation after lung cancer screening decisions.

Few studies exist showing that involvement in lung cancer screening (LCS) leads to a change in rates of cigarette smoking. We investigated LCS longitudinally to determine whether teachable moments for smoking cessation occur downstream from the initial provider-patient LCS shared decision-making discussion and self-reported effects on smoking behaviors. We performed up to two successive semi-structured interviews to assess the experiences of 39 individuals who formerly or currently smoked cigarettes who underwent LCS decision-making discussions performed during routine care from three established US medical center LCS programs. The majority of those who remembered hearing about the importance of smoking cessation after LCS-related encounters did not report communication about smoking influencing their motivation to quit or abstain from smoking, including patients who were found to have pulmonary nodules. Patients experienced little distress related to LCS discussions. Patients reported that there were other, more significant, reasons for quitting or abstinence. They recommended clinicians continue to ask about smoking at every clinical encounter, provide information comparing the benefits of LCS with those of quitting smoking, and have clinicians help them identify triggers or other motivators for improving smoking behaviors. Our findings suggest that there may be other teachable moment opportunities outside of LCS processes that could be utilized to motivate smoking reduction or cessation, or LCS processes could be improved to integrate cessation resources.