scholarly journals A qualitative study exploring why individuals opt out of lung cancer screening

2017 ◽  
pp. cmw146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Carter-Harris ◽  
Susan Brandzel ◽  
Karen J Wernli ◽  
Joshua A Roth ◽  
Diana S M Buist
2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 147
Author(s):  
Lisa Carter-Harris ◽  
Susan Brandzel ◽  
Karen Wernli ◽  
Joshua Roth ◽  
Diana Buist

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. S580
Author(s):  
Lisa Carter-Harris ◽  
Susan Brandzel ◽  
Joshua Roth ◽  
Karen Wernli ◽  
Diana Buist

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mamta Ruparel ◽  
Samantha Quaife ◽  
David Baldwin ◽  
Jo Waller ◽  
Samuel Janes

IntroductionLung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose CT has been shown to improve mortality, but individuals must consider the potential benefits and harms before making an informed decision about taking part. Shared decision-making is required for LCS in USA, though screening-eligible individuals’ specific views of these harms, and their preferences for accessing this information, are not well described.MethodsIn this qualitative study, we aimed to explore knowledge and perceptions around lung cancer and LCS with a focus on harms. We carried out seven focus groups with screening-eligible individuals, which were divided into current versus former smokers and lower versus higher educational backgrounds; and 16 interviews with health professionals including general practitioners, respiratory physicians, lung cancer nurse specialists and public health consultants. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were coded inductively and analysed using the framework method.ResultsFatalistic views about lung cancer as an incurable disease dominated, particularly among current smokers, and participants were often unaware of curative treatment options. Despite this, beliefs that screening is sensible and worthwhile were expressed. Generally participants felt they had the ‘right’ to an informed decision, though some cautioned against information overload. The potential harms of LCS were poorly understood, particularly overdiagnosis and radiation exposure, but participants were unlikely to be deterred by them. Strong concerns about false-negative results were expressed, while false-positive results and indeterminate nodules were also reported as concerning.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate the need for LCS information materials to highlight information on the benefits of early detection and options for curative treatment, while accurately presenting the possible harms. Information needs are likely to vary between individuals and we recommend simple information materials to be made available to all individuals considering participating in LCS, with signposting to more detailed information for those who require it.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 1977-1982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neeti M. Kanodra ◽  
Charlene Pope ◽  
Chanita H. Halbert ◽  
Gerard A. Silvestri ◽  
LaShanta J. Rice ◽  
...  

Thorax ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 418-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deesha Patel ◽  
Ajiri Akporobaro ◽  
Nyasha Chinyanganya ◽  
Allan Hackshaw ◽  
Clive Seale ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 546-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne C Melzer ◽  
Sara E. Golden ◽  
Sarah S. Ono ◽  
Santanu Datta ◽  
Kristina Crothers ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 1035-1042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renda Soylemez Wiener ◽  
Elisa Koppelman ◽  
Rendelle Bolton ◽  
Karen E. Lasser ◽  
Belinda Borrelli ◽  
...  

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (23) ◽  
pp. 6110
Author(s):  
Zixuan Zhao ◽  
Lingbin Du ◽  
Le Wang ◽  
Youqing Wang ◽  
Yi Yang ◽  
...  

This study aimed to identify preferred lung cancer screening modalities in a Chinese population and predict uptake rates of different modalities. A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was administered to 392 Chinese individuals aged 50–74 years who were at high risk for lung cancer. Each choice set had two lung screening options and an option to opt-out, and respondents were asked to choose the most preferred one. Both mixed logit analysis and stepwise logistic analysis were conducted to explore whether preferences were related to respondent characteristics and identify which kinds of respondents were more likely to opt out of any screening. On mixed logit analysis, attributes that were predictive of choice at 1% level of statistical significance included the screening interval, screening venue, and out-of-pocket costs. The preferred screening modality seemed to be screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) + blood test once a year in a general hospital at a cost of RMB 50; this could increase the uptake rate by 0.40 compared to the baseline setting. On stepwise logistic regression, those with no endowment insurance were more likely to opt out; those who were older and housewives/househusbands, and those with a health check habit and with commercial endowment insurance were less likely to opt out from a screening programme. There was considerable variance between real risk and self-perceived risk of lung cancer among respondents. Lung cancer screening uptake can be increased by offering various screening modalities, so as to help policymakers further design the screening modality.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document