Primary Care Provider and Patient Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening. A Qualitative Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 1977-1982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neeti M. Kanodra ◽  
Charlene Pope ◽  
Chanita H. Halbert ◽  
Gerard A. Silvestri ◽  
LaShanta J. Rice ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Primary Care Provider ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Patient Perspectives

Performance of a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening program: Findings from a registry study.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 304-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernardo Goulart ◽  
David Madtes ◽  
Lisel Koepl ◽  
Andrew Karnopp ◽  
Judy Ann Nelson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Primary Care Provider ◽  
Incidental Findings ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Registry Study

304 Background: Many centers are establishing LDCT lung cancer screening programs after the 2013 grade B recommendation from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Uncertainty remains regarding the extent to which new programs will adhere to recommended selection criteria, as well as screening program performance. We analyzed adherence to selection criteria, rate of positive screens, and prevalence of incidental findings in a single-center LDCT screening registry study. Methods: We established a prospective, longitudinal registry study of patients undergoing LDCT screening at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. Baseline data include socio-demographic characteristics and eligibility for LDCT screening. We conduct chart reviews at 6 and 12 months to determine screening results (based on NLST definitions); lung cancer diagnosis; and incidental findings. Results: From August 2012 to April 2014, 62 out of 105 (59%) screened patients enrolled in the registry. Mean age is 62 years; 38 (61%) are male; 52 (84%) are white; mean household income is $97,363; 31 (50%) are current smokers; and 39 (63%) have a smoking history ≥ 30 pack-years. A total of 28 (45%), 31 (50%), and 31 (50%) of patients were eligible for screening based on criteria used in the NLST or recommended by the NCCN or USPSTF guidelines, respectively. Sixteen patients (26%) were not eligible for screening based on any of these criteria. For fourteen (88%) of these patients, LDCT screening was ordered by a primary care provider as opposed to a lung cancer specialist. Initial screening results were positive in 7 (13%) patients, with 1 patient diagnosed with lung cancer. At least one incidental finding was reported in 40 (74%) patients, including cardiac and pulmonary abnormalities in 28 (70%) and 25 (63%) patients. Conclusions: About one quarter of patients undergoing LDCT screening do not meet recommended criteria, with primary care providers most commonly ordering the LDCT screen for these patients. Primary care provider education may improve adherence to screening guidelines. Incidental findings were more frequently reported than in the NLST; their impact on healthcare outcomes and costs deserves further investigation.

scholarly journals Lung cancer screening in a community setting: Characteristics, motivations, and attitudes of individuals being screened

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 205510291881916 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret M Byrne ◽  
Sarah E Lillie ◽  
Jamie L Studts
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Community Settings ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Factors Influencing

We describe the characteristics of individuals being screened in community settings including factors influencing screening decisions and the level of information sought prior to screening. Individuals from two community-based radiology clinics ( N = 27) were surveyed after screening. Screening efficacy and salience were the most important factors in screening decisions, whereas healthcare provider recommendations were rated not important. Half of participants reported no or little conversation about screening with their primary care provider, and 61.5 percent had not sought any information on screening. Individuals being screened in a community setting are unlikely to have sufficient information for an informed decision about screening.

Challenges to Educating Smokers About Lung Cancer Screening: a Qualitative Study of Decision Making Experiences in Primary Care

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 1142-1149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Preston A. Greene ◽  
George Sayre ◽  
Jaimee L. Heffner ◽  
Deborah E. Klein ◽  
Paul Krebs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening

scholarly journals An Assessment of Primary Care and Pulmonary Provider Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Triplette ◽  
Erin K. Kross ◽  
Blake A. Mann ◽  
Joann G. Elmore ◽  
Christopher G. Slatore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Provider Perspectives

Implementing lung cancer screening in primary care: needs assessment and implementation strategy design

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J Reese ◽  
Chelsey R Schlechter ◽  
Heidi Kramer ◽  
Polina Kukhareva ◽  
Charlene R Weir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Behavioral Determinants ◽  
Causal Pathways ◽  
Task Behaviors

Abstract Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) could help avert thousands of deaths each year. Since the implementation of screening is complex and underspecified, there is a need for systematic and theory-based strategies. Explore the implementation of lung cancer screening in primary care, in the context of integrating a decision aid into the electronic health record. Design implementation strategies that target hypothesized mechanisms of change and context-specific barriers. The study had two phases. The Qualitative Analysis phase included semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians to elicit key task behaviors (e.g., ordering a low-dose CT) and understand the underlying behavioral determinants (e.g., social influence). The Implementation Strategy Design phase consisted of defining implementation strategies and hypothesizing causal pathways to improve screening with a decision aid. Three key task behaviors and four behavioral determinants emerged from 14 interviews. Implementation strategies were designed to target multiple levels of influence. Strategies included increasing provider self-efficacy toward performing shared decision making and using the decision aid, improving provider performance expectancy toward ordering a low-dose CT, increasing social influence toward performing shared decision making and using the decision aid, and addressing key facilitators to using the decision aid. This study contributes knowledge about theoretical determinants of key task behaviors associated with lung cancer screening. We designed implementation strategies according to causal pathways that can be replicated and tested at other institutions. Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies and to determine the contexts in which they can be effectively applied.

scholarly journals Interviews With Patients Offered Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Lessons in How Screening May Influence Smoking Cessation

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 108
Author(s):  
Steven B Zeliadt ◽  
Jaimee L ◽  
Deborah E Klein ◽  
George Sayre ◽  
Lynn F Reinke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mamta Ruparel ◽  
Samantha Quaife ◽  
David Baldwin ◽  
Jo Waller ◽  
Samuel Janes
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Curative Treatment ◽  
Information Materials

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document