scholarly journals FP13.01 Assessment of the Fear of COVID-19 and Its Impact on Lung Cancer Screening Participation Among the Korean General Population

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. S968
Author(s):  
L. Duong ◽  
N. Lee ◽  
Y. Kim ◽  
Y. Kim
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
General Population ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Participation ◽  
Cancer Screening Participation

scholarly journals Lung Cancer Screening Participation: Developing a Conceptual Model to Guide Research

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 333-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Carter-Harris ◽  
Lorie L. Davis ◽  
Susan M. Rawl
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Conceptual Model ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Adoption Process ◽  
Screening Behavior ◽  
Screening Participation ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Cancer Screening Participation

Purpose: To describe the development of a conceptual model to guide research focused on lung cancer screening participation from the perspective of the individual in the decision-making process. Methods: Based on a comprehensive review of empirical and theoretical literature, a conceptual model was developed linking key psychological variables (stigma, medical mistrust, fatalism, worry, and fear) to the health belief model and precaution adoption process model. Results: Proposed model concepts have been examined in prior research of either lung or other cancer screening behavior. To date, a few studies have explored a limited number of variables that influence screening behavior in lung cancer specifically. Therefore, relationships among concepts in the model have been proposed and future research directions presented. Conclusion: This proposed model is an initial step to support theoretically based research. As lung cancer screening becomes more widely implemented, it is critical to theoretically guide research to understand variables that may be associated with lung cancer screening participation. Findings from future research guided by the proposed conceptual model can be used to refine the model and inform tailored intervention development.

scholarly journals Examining the effect of underlying individual preferences for present over future on lung cancer screening participation: a cross-sectional analysis of a Korean National Cancer Screening Survey

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e035495
Author(s):  
Jaeho Lee ◽  
Yeol Kim ◽  
Mina Suh ◽  
Seri Hong ◽  
Kui Son Choi
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Individual Preferences ◽  
Screening Participation ◽  
The Future ◽  
Intention To Participate ◽  
Cancer Screening Participation ◽  
Screening Survey

ObjectivesThis study aimed to examine the effect of underlying individual preferences for the present over that for the future on lung cancer screening participation.SettingWe analysed the data from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey in 2018.Participants4500 adults aged 20–74 years old participated in the study.DesignIn this cross-sectional survey, multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to examine the association between subjects’ intention to participate in lung cancer screening and individual preferences. The underlying individual preferences were measured on the basis of the self-reported general willingness to spend money now in order to save money in the future and general preferences with regard to financial planning.Primary outcome measureIntention to participate in lung cancer screening.ResultsIndividuals eligible for lung cancer screening who place less value on their future were around four times less likely to report an intention to participate in lung cancer screening than were those who valued their future (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.89 to 7.90). A present-biassed individual (one with a tendency for immediate gratification) was also about four times less likely to report an intention to participate in screening than an individual with no present bias (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57).ConclusionsUnderlying individual preferences regarding the present and future significantly affect individuals’ intention to participate in lung cancer screening. Hence, provision of incentives may be necessary to encourage the targeted heavy smokers who may have a strong preferences for the present over future.

scholarly journals Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Carter-Harris ◽  
James E Slaven ◽  
Patrick O Monahan ◽  
Claire Burke Draucker ◽  
Emilee Vode ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Path Analysis ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Mistrust ◽  
Screening Participation ◽  
Modifiable Factors ◽  
Cancer Screening Participation

Objective Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour is crucial to identifying potentially modifiable factors for future intervention. Qualititative work has explored attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening from the perspective of the participant, but the theoretically grounded factors that influence screening-eligible individuals to screen are unknown. We tested an explanatory framework for lung cancer screening participation from the individual’s perspective. Methods Data were collected as part of a sequential explanatory mixed methods study, the quantitative component of which is reported here. A national purposive sample of 515 screening-eligible participants in the United States was recruited using Facebook-targeted advertisement. Participants completed surveys assessing constructs of the Conceptual Model for Lung Cancer Screening Participation. Path analysis was used to assess the relationships between variables. Results Path analyses revealed that a clinician recommendation to screen, higher self-efficacy scores, and lower mistrust scores were directly associated with screening participation (p < 0.05). However, the link between screening behaviour and self-efficacy appeared to be fully mediated by fatalism, lung cancer fear, lung cancer family history, knowledge of lung cancer risk and screening, income, clinician recommendation, and social influence (p < 0.05). Conclusions This study found that medical mistrust, self-efficacy, and clinician recommendation were significant in the decision of whether to screen for lung cancer. These findings offer insight into potentially modifiable targets most appropriate on which to intervene. This understanding is critical to design meaningful clinician- and patient-focused interventions.

scholarly journals LUNG CANCER SCREENING PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTH SYSTEMS FROM THE PROSPR-LUNG CONSORTIUM

CHEST Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 160 (4) ◽  
pp. A1490-A1491
Author(s):  
Andrea Burnett-Hartman ◽  
Nikki Carroll ◽  
Jennifer Croswell ◽  
Robert Greenlee ◽  
Stacey Honda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Screening Participation ◽  
Cancer Screening Participation

scholarly journals 942. Lung Cancer Screening in at-risk patients with HIV in a Midwestern Clinic

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S504-S504
Author(s):  
Wilfredo Lopez ◽  
Harlan R Sayles ◽  
Sara H Bares ◽  
Nada Fadul
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
General Population ◽  
Tobacco Cessation ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Hepatitis C Infection ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background Patients with HIV (PWH) have an increased risk of lung cancer compared to the general population. In 2013, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released their lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines for the general population. The objective of this study is to evaluate the frequency of and factors associated with LCS using computed tomography in at-risk PWH. Methods A retrospective chart review of patients 55-80 years old seen at a Midwestern HIV Clinic between July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018 was conducted. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and referral for LCS information were collected. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used for analysis. Results We reviewed 347 patients, out of whom 91 were excluded for the following reasons: never smoked (8), deceased (38), pack history unknown (39), and prior lung cancer diagnosis (6). Mean (sd, range) for age was 61 (5.0, 55-78). A total of 256 patients were included in the analysis, out of whom 104 (41%) met the USPSTF criteria. No effect was identified for demographic information including race, ethnicity, gender, or insurance status on LCS referral. LCS referral was made for 22 out of 256 patients (9%) (13% of patients who met the USPSTF criteria and 5% of those who did not). Patients who received tobacco cessation counseling (OR 7.83, P=0.047) and with hepatitis C infection (OR 4.32, P=0.002) were more likely to receive LCS referral. Out of those who received LCS referral, 12/22 (55%) completed the referral. Patients with hepatitis C infection were more likely to complete LCS referral (OR 8, P=0.038). Conclusion Only 13% of patients who met USPSTF criteria were referred for LCS. Patients who received tobacco cessation counseling were more likely to receive a referral. Patients with hepatitis C infection were more likely to receive and complete LCS referral. Quality improvement efforts to improve rates of LCS in PWH are needed. Future prospective studies should examine the factors associated with LCS in PWH. Disclosures Sara H. Bares, MD, Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document