Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
An alternating-intervention pilot trial on the impact of an informational handout on patient-reported outcomes and follow-up after lung cancer screening.
Triplette, Matthew; Kross, Erin K; Snidarich, Madison; Shahrir, Shahida; Hippe, Daniel S; Crothers, Kristina.
Affiliation
  • Triplette M; Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
  • Kross EK; Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
  • Snidarich M; Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
  • Shahrir S; Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence at UW Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
  • Hippe DS; Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
  • Crothers K; Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
PLoS One ; 19(4): e0300352, 2024.
Article de En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38598511
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality; however, poor understanding of results may impact patient experience and follow-up. We sought to determine whether an informational handout accompanying LCS results can improve patient-reported outcomes and adherence to follow-up. STUDY

DESIGN:

This was a prospective alternating intervention pilot trial of a handout to accompany LCS results delivery. SETTING/

PARTICIPANTS:

Patients undergoing LCS in a multisite program over a 6-month period received a mailing containing either 1) a standardized form letter of LCS results (control) or 2) the LCS results letter and the handout (intervention). INTERVENTION A two-sided informational handout on commonly asked questions after LCS created through iterative mixed-methods evaluation with both LCS patients and providers. OUTCOME

MEASURES:

The primary outcomes of 1)patient understanding of LCS results, 2)correct identification of next steps in screening, and 3)patient distress were measured through survey. Adherence to recommended follow-up after LCS was determined through chart review. Outcomes were compared between the intervention and control group using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS:

389 patients were eligible and enrolled with survey responses from 230 participants (59% response rate). We found no differences in understanding of results, identification of next steps in follow-up or distress but did find higher levels of knowledge and understanding on questions assessing individual components of LCS in the intervention group. Follow-up adherence was overall similar between the two arms, though was higher in the intervention group among those with positive findings (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS:

There were no differences in self-reported outcomes between the groups or overall follow-up adherence. Those receiving the intervention did report greater understanding and knowledge of key LCS components, and those with positive results had a higher rate of follow-up. This may represent a feasible component of a multi-level intervention to address knowledge and follow-up for LCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05265897.
Sujet(s)

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Sujet principal: Tumeurs du poumon Limites: Humans Langue: En Journal: PLoS One Sujet du journal: CIENCIA / MEDICINA Année: 2024 Type de document: Article Pays d'affiliation: États-Unis d'Amérique

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Sujet principal: Tumeurs du poumon Limites: Humans Langue: En Journal: PLoS One Sujet du journal: CIENCIA / MEDICINA Année: 2024 Type de document: Article Pays d'affiliation: États-Unis d'Amérique