Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27652509›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2016

Patients' Attitudes Regarding Lung Cancer Screening and Decision Aids. A Survey and Focus Group Study.

Kristina Crothers, Erin K Kross, Lisa M Reisch, Shahida Shahrir, Christopher Slatore, Steven B Zeliadt, Matthew Triplette, Rafael Meza, Joann G Elmore

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kristina Crothers1 Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.ORCID 0000-0001-9702-0371
Erin K Kross1 Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Lisa M Reisch1 Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Shahida Shahrir1 Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Christopher Slatore2 Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon; Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, and Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.ORCID 0000-0003-0958-8122
Steven B Zeliadt3 Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound, and School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; and.
Matthew Triplette1 Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Rafael Meza4 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0002-1076-5037
Joann G Elmore1 Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

RESPIRATORY RESEARCH TRAINING PROGRAMT32HL007287 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Kristina Anne Crothers, David J. Horne · 1985 to 2026
$16.7M
Improving Accuracy &Outcomes of Breast Cancer ScreeningK05CA104699 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G · 2004 to 2014
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS K05 CA104699NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007287
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleLittle is known about vulnerable patients' perceptions and understanding of, and preferences for, lung cancer screening decision aids.

objectivesTo determine, in a low-income, racially diverse population, (1) participants' experience, preferences, and reactions to web-based and paper decision aids, and (2) their understanding of harms and benefits of lung cancer screening.

methodsWe enrolled outpatients at an urban county hospital in six focus group discussions that included review of a web-based and a paper-based lung-cancer screening decision aid. Participants completed surveys before and after the focus groups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsForty-five patients participated (mean age, 61 yr; 76% current smokers; 24% former smokers); 27% had not completed high school; 50% had an annual income not exceeding $15,000; 42% were nonwhite; and 96% reported chronic illness requiring at least three health care visits yearly. Comparing the proportion with correct answers on pre- and postsurveys, participants' understanding of lung cancer screening increased, particularly of the harms of screening including the potential for false positives, extra testing, and complications. However, after conclusion of the focus groups, more than 50% believed that screening lowered the chance of getting lung cancer. Five major themes emerged from qualitative analyses. Participants (1) were not aware of the purpose of lung cancer screening; (2) wanted to know about the benefits and harms; (3) believed physicians need to communicate more effectively; (4) found decision aids helpful and influential for decision-making about screening; and (5) wanted the discussion to be personalized and tailored. Participants expressed surprise that the magnitude of their lung cancer risk and benefits of screening were lower than anticipated.

conclusionsVulnerable patients find lung cancer screening decision aids helpful and generally show increased knowledge after reviewing decision aids, particularly of harms. Our results can inform future implementation efforts.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeCommunicationEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFocus GroupsHumansLongitudinal StudiesLung NeoplasmsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsSurveys and Questionnairesdecision support techniquesearly detection of cancerhealth care disparitieslung neoplasmsqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID27652509
PMCPMC5466178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.