scholarly journals Correction: Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000448corr1
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.


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

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 ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 973-991
Author(s):  
Mary S. Rodríguez-Rabassa ◽  
Vani N. Simmons ◽  
Agueda Vega ◽  
Daniela Moreno ◽  
Jessica Irizarry-Ramos ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 501-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Ann O’Brien ◽  
Diego Llovet ◽  
Frank Sullivan ◽  
Lawrence Paszat

Abstract Background The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated that screening with low-dose computed tomography significantly reduces mortality from lung cancer in high-risk individuals. Objective To describe the role preferences and information needs of primary care providers (PCPs) in a future organized lung cancer screening program. Methods We purposively sampled PCPs from diverse health regions of Ontario and from different practice models including family health teams and community health centres. We also recruited family physicians with a leadership role in cancer screening. We used focus groups and a nominal group process to identify informational priorities. Two analysts systematically applied a coding scheme to interview transcripts. Results Four groups were held with 34 providers and administrative staff [28 (82%) female, 21 (62%) physicians, 7 (20%) other health professionals and 6 (18%) administrative staff]. PCPs and staff were generally positive about a potential lung cancer screening program but had variable views on their involvement. Informational needs included evidence of potential benefits and harms of screening. Most providers preferred that a new program be modelled on positive features of an existing breast cancer screening program. Lung cancer screening was viewed as a new opportunity to counsel patients about smoking cessation. Conclusions The development of a future lung cancer screening program should consider the wide variability in the roles that PCPs preferred. An explicit link to existing smoking cessation programs was seen as essential. As providers had significant information needs, learning materials and opportunities should be developed with them.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document