The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Tobacco Treatment Program Implementation at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer screening and treatment delivery, but COVID-19's impact on tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients who smoke has not been widely explored. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a sequential cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 34 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers participating in NCI's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I), across three reporting periods: one prior to COVID-19 (January-June 2019) and two during the pandemic (January-June 2020, January-June 2021). Using McNemar's Test of Homogeneity, we assessed changes in services offered and implementation activities over time. RESULTS: The proportion of centers offering remote treatment services increased each year for Quitline referrals (56%, 68%, and 91%; p = .000), telephone counseling (59%, 79%, and 94%; p = .002), and referrals to Smokefree TXT (27%, 47%, and 56%; p = .006). Centers offering video-based counseling increased from 2020 to 2021 (18% to 59%; p = .006), Fewer than 10% of centers reported laying off tobacco treatment staff. Compared to early 2020, in 2021 C3I centers reported improvements in their ability to maintain staff and clinician morale, refer to external treatment services, train providers to deliver tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid transition to new telehealth program delivery of tobacco treatment for patients with cancer. C3I cancer centers adjusted rapidly to challenges presented by the pandemic, with improvements reported in staff morale and ability to train providers, refer patients to tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. These factors enabled C3I centers to sustain evidence-based tobacco treatment implementation during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: This work describes how NCI-designated cancer centers participating in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) adapted to challenges to sustain evidence-based tobacco use treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This work offers a model for resilience and rapid transition to remote tobacco treatment services delivery and proposes a policy and research agenda for telehealth services as an approach to sustaining evidence-based tobacco treatment programs.

An Adaptation, Extension and Pre-Testing of an Interactive Decision Aid for Men Diagnosed with Localized Prostate Cancer in Iceland: A Mixed-Method Study.

In this study an interactive decision aid (DA) for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer was adapted, extended and pre-tested. The DA's prototype was based on a literature review and other empirically tested DAs. Semi-structured interviews with 12 men (age 65-80) diagnosed with localized prostate cancer were conducted to get feedback on content, usability, and the DA's layout. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and themes were identified using deductive and inductive coding. Participants found the accessibility of the information and the explicit values clarification tool helpful. Four themes were identified: (1) usability and design, (2) content and knowledge, (3) deciding factors of decision-making, and (4) social support. Participants valued receiving extensive and realistic information on surgery/radiation therapy side effects and getting unbiased presentations of treatment options. Following the thematic analysis, the DA was revised and tested in a survey among 11 newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients (age 60-74). The participants valued the DA and found it helpful when making a treatment decision, and all reported that they would recommend it to others making a prostate cancer treatment decision. The DA is currently being tested in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). This is the first DA developed for prostate cancer patients in Iceland and if the results of the RCT show that it is more effective than standard care in assisting newly diagnosed patients with their treatment decision, the DA can be easily translated and adapted to cultures similar to Iceland such as the Nordic countries.

Development and Evaluation of Brief Web-Based Education for Primary Care Providers to Address Inequities in Lung Cancer Screening and Smoking Cessation Treatment.

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for individuals at high risk for lung cancer. However, primary care provider-initiated discussions about LCS and referrals for screening are low overall, particularly among Black or African Americans and other minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Disparities also exist in receiving provider advice to quit smoking. Effective methods are needed to improve provider knowledge about LCS and tobacco-related disparities, and to provide resources to achieve equity in LCS rates. We report the feasibility and impact of pairing a self-directed Lung Cancer Health Disparities (HD) Web-based course with the National Training Network Lung Cancer Screening (LuCa) course on primary care providers' knowledge about LCS and the health disparities associated with LCS. In a quasi-experimental study, primary care providers (N = 91) recruited from the MedStar Health System were assigned to complete the LuCa course only vs. the LuCa + HD courses. We measured pre-post-LCS-related knowledge and opinions about the courses. The majority (60.4%) of providers were resident physicians. There was no significant difference between groups on post-test knowledge (p > 0.05). However, within groups, there was an improvement in knowledge from pre- to post-test (LuCa only (p = 0.03); LuCa + HD (p < 0.001)). The majority of providers (81%) indicated they planned to improve their screening and preventive practices after having reviewed the educational modules. These findings provide preliminary evidence that this e-learning course can be used to educate providers on LCS, smoking cessation, and related disparities impacting patients.

Lung cancer screening use and implications of varying eligibility criteria by race and ethnicity: 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for low-dose computed tomographic lung cancer screening (LCS) to reduce racial disparities that resulted from the 2013 USPSTF criteria. The annual LCS rate has risen slowly since the 2013 USPSTF screening recommendations. Using the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), this study 1) describes LCS use in 2019, 2) compares the percent eligible for LCS using the 2013 versus 2021 USPSTF criteria, and 3) determines the percent eligible using the more detailed PLCOm2012Race3L risk-prediction model. METHODS: The analysis included 41,544 individuals with a smoking history from states participating in the BRFSS LCS module who were ≥50 years old. RESULTS: Using the 2013 USPSTF criteria, 20.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.0-22.4) of eligible individuals underwent LCS in 2019. The 2013 USPSTF criteria was compared to the 2021 USPSTF criteria, and the overall proportion eligible increased from 21.0% (95% CI, 20.2-21.8) to 34.7% (95 CI, 33.8-35.6). Applying the 2021 criteria, the proportion eligible by race was 35.8% (95% CI, 34.8-36.7) among Whites, 28.5% (95% CI, 25.2-31.9) among Blacks, and 18.0% (95% CI, 12.4-23.7) among Hispanics. Using the 1.0% 6-year threshold that is comparable to the 2021 USPSTF criteria, the PLCOm2012Race3L model selected more individuals overall and by race. CONCLUSIONS: Using data from 20 states and using multiple imputation, higher LCS rates have been reported compared to prior BRFSS data. The 2021 expanded criteria will result in a greater number of screen-eligible individuals. However, risk-based screening that uses additional risk factors may be more inclusive overall and across subgroups. LAY SUMMARY: In 2013, lung cancer screening (lung screening) was recommended for high risk individuals. The annual rate of lung screening has risen slowly, particularly among Black individuals. In part, this racial disparity resulted in expanded 2021 criteria. Survey data was used to: 1) describe the number of people screened in 2019, 2) compare the percent eligible for lung screening using the 2013 versus 2021 guidelines, and 3) determine the percent eligible using more detailed criteria. Lung screening rates increased in 2019, and the 2021 criteria will result in more individuals eligible for screening. Using additional criteria may identify more individuals eligible for lung screening.

Improved motivation and readiness to quit shortly after lung cancer screening: Evidence for a teachable moment.

BACKGROUND: For patients at high risk for lung cancer, screening using low-dose computed tomography (lung cancer screening [LCS]) is recommended. The purpose of this study was to examine whether screening may serve as a teachable moment for smoking-related outcomes. METHODS: In a smoking-cessation trial, participants (N = 843) completed 2 phone interviews before randomization: before LCS (T0) and after LCS (T1). By using logistic and linear regression, the authors examined teachable moment variables (perceived risk, lung cancer worry) and outcomes (readiness, motivation, and cigarettes per day [CPD]). RESULTS: Participants were a mean ± SD age of 63.7 ± 5.9 years, had 47.8 ± 7.1 pack-years of smoking, 35.2% had a high school diploma or General Educational Development (high school equivalency) degree or less, and 42.3% were undergoing their first scan. Between T0 and T1, 25.7% of participants increased readiness to quit, 9.6% decreased readiness, and 64.7% reported no change (P < .001). Motivation to quit increased (P < .05) and CPD decreased between assessments (P < .001), but only 1.3% self-reported quitting. Compared with individuals who reported no lung cancer worry/little worry, extreme worry was associated with readiness to quit in the next 30 days (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0) and with higher motivation (b = 0.83; P < .001) at T1. Individuals undergoing a baseline (vs annual) scan were more ready to quit in the next 30 days (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5). CONCLUSIONS: During the brief window between registering for LCS and receiving the results, the authors observed that very few participants quit smoking, but a significant proportion improved on readiness and motivation to quit, particularly among individuals who were undergoing their first scan and those who were extremely worried about lung cancer. These results indicate that providing evidence-based tobacco treatment can build upon this teachable moment.

Lung cancer screening decisional needs among African American smokers of lower socioeconomic status.

OBJECTIVES: Adherence to most evidence-based cancer screenings is lower among African Americans due to system- and individual-level factors that contribute to persistent disparities. Given the recommendation for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening among individuals at high risk for lung cancer, we sought to describe aspects of decision-making for LDCT among African Americans and to examine associations between select components of decision-making and screening-related intentions. DESIGN: African Americans (N = 119) with a long-term smoking history, aged 55-80 years, and without lung cancer were recruited to participate in a cross-sectional survey. We measured knowledge, awareness, decisional conflict, preferences, and values related to lung cancer screening. RESULTS: The majority of the study population was of lower socioeconomic status (67.2% had an annual income of ≤$20,000) and long-term current (79%) smokers. Participants had a median 20 pack-years smoking history. Most participants (65.8%) had not heard of LDCT and the total lung cancer screening knowledge score was M = 7.1/15.0 (SD = 1.8). Participants with higher scores on the importance of the pros and cons of screening expressed greater likelihood of talking with a doctor, family, and friends about screening (p's < .10). CONCLUSIONS: Findings have implications for addressing the decisional needs of lower socioeconomic African American current and former smokers to promote informed decision-making for LDCT.

Predictors of Enrollment of Older Smokers in Six Smoking Cessation Trials in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting: The Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination (SCALE) Collaboration.

SIGNIFICANCE: Increased rates of smoking cessation will be essential to maximize the population benefit of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. The NCI's Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination (SCALE) Collaboration includes eight randomized trials, each assessing evidence-based interventions among smokers undergoing lung cancer screening (LCS). We examined predictors of trial enrollment to improve future outreach efforts for cessation interventions offered to older smokers in this and other clinical settings. METHODS: We included the six SCALE trials that randomized individual participants. We assessed demographics, intervention modalities, LCS site and trial administration characteristics, and reasons for declining. RESULTS: Of 6285 trial- and LCS-eligible individuals, 3897 (62%) declined and 2388 (38%) enrolled. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, Blacks had higher enrollment rates (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2,1.8) compared to Whites. Compared to "NRT Only" trials, those approached for "NRT + prescription medication" trials had higher odds of enrollment (OR 6.1, 95% CI 4.7,7.9). Regarding enrollment methods, trials using "Phone + In Person" methods had higher odds of enrollment (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2,1.9) compared to trials using "Phone Only" methods. Some of the reasons for declining enrollment included "too busy" (36.6%), "not ready to quit" (8.2%), "not interested in research" (7.7%), and "not interested in the intervention offered" (6.2%). CONCLUSION: Enrolling smokers in cessation interventions in the LCS setting is a major priority that requires multiple enrollment and intervention modalities. Barriers to enrollment provide insights that can be addressed and applied to future cessation interventions to improve implementation in LCS and other clinical settings with older smokers. IMPLICATIONS: We explored enrollment rates and reasons for declining across six smoking cessation trials in the lung cancer screening setting. Offering multiple accrual methods and pharmacotherapy options predicted increased enrollment across trials. Enrollment rates were also greater among Blacks compared to Whites. The findings offer practical information for the implementation of cessation trials and interventions in the lung cancer screening context and other clinical settings, regarding intervention modalities that may be most appealing to older, long-term smokers.

The Genetic Education for Men (GEM) Trial: Development of Web-Based Education for Untested Men in BRCA1/2-Positive Families.

Cascade testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer is an important public health priority. Increasing attention has been paid to the relevance of testing for men within BRCA1/2-positive families given that such testing may provide important information about their cancer risks, particularly for prostate cancer, and risks to their offspring. However, men are much less likely to seek genetic counseling and testing than their at-risk female relatives. To facilitate access to pre-test information and testing, we developed a web-based intervention (WI) for men that we are evaluating in a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT). This paper describes three phases of research in the development of the WI: (1) formative (qualitative) research among men from BRCA1/2 families to assess needs and preferences for education; (2) a detailed description of the organization, format, and content of the WI; and (3) usability testing. We discuss the aims and hypotheses of the pilot RCT in which the WI is being compared with an enhanced usual care condition among at-risk men. We expect that the WI described here will foster informed decisions and lead to increased use of BRCA1/2 counseling and testing, potentially yielding improved cancer control outcomes for this understudied group, and for their at-risk relatives.

Correction to: Development of Decisional Values Statements for Lung Cancer Screening among African American Smokers.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained mistakes in Tables 1 and 3.

Development of Decisional Values Statements for Lung Cancer Screening Among African American Smokers.

Lung cancer screening via low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been underutilized by high-risk current and former smokers since its approval in 2013. Further, lower use of other evidence-based cancer screening tests (e.g., colorectal cancer, breast cancer) has been noted among African Americans when compared with other racial and ethnic groups. Reasons for low uptake are multilayered but include the need for consideration of patients' personal values about the screening decision. The goal of the present study was to (1) identify positive and negative factors specific to lung cancer screening via LDCT and (2) develop statements to capture values about the screening test for use in a new measure of decisional values. Key informant interviews (n = 9) identified several benefits and risks of lung cancer screening that may be important to African American smokers. Based on these interviews, a pool of items with the values statements was administered to a convenience sample of 119 African Americans [aged 55-80 years, current or former smokers (who quit < 15 years), and without lung cancer]. An exploratory factor analysis revealed two components explaining 64% of the variance: cons of screening (e.g., "make you feel badly about your smoking history") and pros of screening (e.g., "lowering your risk of dying from lung cancer"). The final 12-item measure had very good internal consistency (α = 0.89 overall; α = 0.86 and 0.88 for subscales, respectively). This tool provides a promising values measure for lung cancer screening among African Americans and could inform future values clarification tools promoting informed and shared decision-making.

Lung Cancer Screening and Smoking Cessation Clinical Trials. SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) Collaboration.

National recommendations for lung cancer screening for former and current smokers aged 55-80 years with a 30-pack-year smoking history create demand to implement efficient and effective systems to offer smoking cessation on a large scale. These older, high-risk smokers differ from participants in past clinical trials of behavioral and pharmacologic interventions for tobacco dependence. There is a gap in knowledge about how best to design systems to extend reach and treatments to maximize smoking cessation in the context of lung cancer screening. Eight clinical trials, seven funded by the National Cancer Institute and one by the Veterans Health Administration, address this gap and form the SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) collaboration. This paper describes methodological issues related to the design of these clinical trials: clinical workflow, participant eligibility criteria, screening indication (baseline or annual repeat screen), assessment content, interest in stopping smoking, and treatment delivery method and dose, all of which will affect tobacco treatment outcomes. Tobacco interventions consider the "teachable moment" offered by lung cancer screening, how to incorporate positive and negative screening results, and coordination of smoking cessation treatment with clinical events associated with lung cancer screening. Unique data elements, such as perceived risk of lung cancer and costs of tobacco treatment, are of interest. Lung cancer screening presents a new and promising opportunity to reduce morbidity and mortality resulting from lung cancer that can be amplified by effective smoking cessation treatment. SCALE teamwork and collaboration promise to maximize knowledge gained from the clinical trials.

Decision-making processes among men with low-risk prostate cancer: A survey study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize decision-making processes and outcomes among men expressing early-treatment preferences for low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted telephone surveys of men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer in 2012 to 2014. We analyzed subjects who had discussed prostate cancer treatment with a clinician and expressed a treatment preference. We asked about decision-making processes, including physician discussions, prostate-cancer knowledge, decision-making styles, treatment preference, and decisional conflict. We compared the responses across treatment groups with χ2 or ANOVA. RESULTS: Participants (n = 761) had a median age of 62; 82% were white, 45% had a college education, and 35% had no comorbidities. Surveys were conducted at a median of 25 days (range 9-100) post diagnosis. Overall, 55% preferred active surveillance (AS), 26% preferred surgery, and 19% preferred radiotherapy. Participants reported routinely considering surgery, radiotherapy, and AS. Most were aware of their low-risk status (97%) and the option for AS (96%). However, men preferring active treatment (AT) were often unaware of treatment complications, including sexual dysfunction (23%) and urinary complications (41%). Most men (63%) wanted to make their own decision after considering the doctor's opinion, and about 90% reported being sufficiently involved in the treatment discussion. Men preferring AS had slightly more uncertainty about their decisions than those preferring AT. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects were actively engaged in decision making and considered a range of treatments. However, we found knowledge gaps about treatment complications among those preferring AT and slightly more decisional uncertainty among those preferring AS, suggesting the need for early decision support.

Multilevel Influences on Patient-Oncologist Communication about Genomic Test Results: Oncologist Perspectives.

Thousands of women with early-stage breast cancer receive gene-expression profile (GEP) tests to guide chemotherapy decisions. However, many patients report a poor understanding of how their test results inform treatment decision-making. We applied models of patient-centered communication and informed decision-making to assess which variables oncologists' perceive as most influential to effective communication with their patients about GEP results and intervention modalities and approaches that could support more effective conversations about treatment decisions in routine clinical care. Medical oncologists who were part of a practice group in the mid-Atlantic US completed an online, cross-sectional survey in 2016. These data were merged with de-identified electronic patient and practice data. Of the 83 oncologists contacted, 29 completed the survey (35% response rate, representing 52% of the test-eligible patients in the practice network). There were no significant differences between survey responders and nonresponders. Oncologists reported patient-related variables as most influential, including performance status (65.5%), pretesting preferences for chemotherapy (55.2%), and comprehension of complex test results (55.2%). Oncologists endorsed their experience with testing (58.6%) and their own confidence in using the test results (48.3%) as influential as well. They indicated that a clinical decision support tool incorporating patient comorbidities, age, and potential benefits from chemotherapy would support their own practice and that they could share these results and other means of communication support using print materials (79.3%) with their patients in clinic (72.4%). These preferred intervention characteristics could be integrated into routine care, ultimately facilitating more effective communication about genomic testing (such as GEP) and its role in treatment selection.

Physicians' perspectives on the informational needs of low-risk prostate cancer patients.

Despite the evidence indicating that decision aids (DA) improve informed treatment decision making for prostate cancer (PCa), physicians do not routinely recommend DAs to their patients. We conducted semi-structured interviews with urologists (n = 11), radiation oncologists (n = 12) and primary care physicians (n = 10) about their methods of educating low-risk PCa patients regarding the treatment decision, their concerns about recommending DAs, and the essential content and format considerations that need to be addressed. Physicians stressed the need for providing comprehensive patient education before the treatment decision is made and expressed concern about the current unevaluated information available on the Internet. They made recommendations for a DA that is brief, applicable to diverse populations, and that fully discloses all treatment options (including active surveillance) and their potential side effects. Echoing previous studies showing that low-risk PCa patients are making rapid and potentially uninformed treatment decisions, these results highlight the importance of providing patient education early in the decision-making process. This need may be fulfilled by a treatment DA, should physicians systematically recommend DAs to their patients. Physicians' recommendations for the inclusion of particular content and presentation methods will be important for designing a high quality DA that will be used in clinical practice.

Sociodemographic and Clinical Predictors of Switching to Active Treatment among a Large, Ethnically Diverse Cohort of Men with Low Risk Prostate Cancer on Observational Management.

PURPOSE: We determined the clinical and sociodemographic predictors of beginning active treatment in an ethnically diverse population of men with low risk prostate cancer initially on observational treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied men diagnosed with low risk prostate cancer between 2004 and 2012 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California who did not receive any treatment within the first year of diagnosis and had at least 2 years of followup. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to determine factors associated with time from diagnosis to active treatment. RESULTS: We identified 2,228 eligible men who were initially on observation, of whom 27% began active treatment during followup at a median of 2.9 years. NonHispanic black men were marginally more likely to begin active treatment than nonHispanic white men independent of baseline and followup clinical measures (HR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.7). Among men who remained on observation nonHispanic black men were rebiopsied within 24 months of diagnosis at a slightly lower rate than nonHispanic white men (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.6-1.0). Gleason grade progression (HR 3.3, 95% CI 2.7-4.1) and PSA doubling time less than 48 months (HR 2.9, 95% CI 2.3-3.7) were associated with initiation of active treatment independent of race. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic factors such as ethnicity and education may independently influence the patient decision to pursue active treatment and serial biopsies during active surveillance. These factors are important for further studies of prostate cancer treatment decision making.

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.

A comparison of web-based versus print-based decision AIDS for prostate cancer screening: participants' evaluation and utilization.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids facilitate informed decision making for medical tests and procedures that have uncertain benefits. OBJECTIVE: To describe participants' evaluation and utilization of print-based and web-based prostate cancer screening decision aids that were found to improve decisional outcomes in a prior randomized controlled trial. DESIGN: Men completed brief telephone interviews at baseline, one month, and 13 months post-randomization. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were primary care patients, 45-70 years old, who received the print-based (N = 628) or web-based decision aid (N = 625) and completed the follow-up assessments. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed men's baseline preference for web-based or print-based materials, time spent using the decision aids, comprehension of the overall message, and ratings of the content. KEY RESULTS: Decision aid use was self-reported by 64.3 % (web) and 81.8 % (print) of participants. Significant predictors of decision aid use were race (white vs. non-white, OR = 2.43, 95 % CI: 1.77, 3.35), higher education (OR = 1.68, 95 % CI: 1.06, 2.70) and trial arm (print vs. web, OR = 2.78, 95 % CI: 2.03, 3.83). Multivariable analyses indicated that web-arm participants were more likely to use the website when they preferred web-based materials (OR: 1.91, CI: 1.17, 3.12), whereas use of the print materials was not significantly impacted by a preference for print-based materials (OR: 0.69, CI: 0.38, 1.25). Comprehension of the decision aid message (i.e., screening is an individual decision) did not significantly differ between arms in adjusted analyses (print: 61.9 % and web: 68.2 %, p = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Decision aid use was independently influenced by race, education, and the decision aid medium, findings consistent with the 'digital divide.' These results suggest that when it is not possible to provide this age cohort with their preferred decision aid medium, print materials will be more highly used than web-based materials. Although there are many advantages to web-based decision aids, providing an option for print-based decision aids should be considered.

Baseline Attitudes About Prostate Cancer Screening Moderate the Impact of Decision Aids on Screening Rates.

BACKGROUND: The impact of decision aids on prostate cancer screening outcomes has been inconsistent. PURPOSE: We assessed whether pre-existing attitudes moderated the impact of decision aids on screening. METHODS: Men aged 45-70 (56.2% Caucasian, 39.9% African-American) were randomly assigned to a print decision aid (N = 630), a web decision aid (N = 631), or usual care (N = 632). Telephone interviews assessed pro/con screening attitudes and screening behaviors at baseline, 1-month and 13-months post-randomization. RESULTS: Logistic regression analyses revealed significant arm by attitude interactions: Higher baseline cons scores predicted lower screening in the print (OR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.40, 0.92)) and web (OR = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.40, 0.91)) arms but not in usual care (OR = 1.34 (95% CI: 0.90, 2.00)). CONCLUSIONS: The decision aids amplified the impact of men's baseline attitudes about limitations of screening: Compared to the usual care arm, men in both decision aid arms were less likely to be screened when they perceived more limitations of screening.

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.