ArticleAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2018
An Assessment of Primary Care and Pulmonary Provider Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening.
Article in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
A Pragmatic Randomized-Controlled Trial of a Digital Outreach Intervention for Lung Cancer Screening: mPATH-Lung (Mobile Patient Technology for Health-Lung)
Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial
Who cites it
50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evidence of Racial Disparities in the Lung Cancer Screening Process: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Guideline
- Identifying Barriers and Strategies to Support a Community Navigator-Driven Approach for Lung Cancer Screening.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Integrating interstitial lung abnormality detection into lung cancer screening: a mixed methods approach for care pathway development.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Article
- Performance of smoking duration-based lung cancer screening eligibility criteria: a comparative modeling study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Patients' and Providers' Perspective of a Multi-level Approach to Improve Participation in Low-dose CT for Lung Cancer Screening (Empower LCS): A Mixed-Methods Analysis.Academic radiology · 2026Article
- Can general practitioners use smoking status data in electronic health records to recruit patients for lung cancer screening? A descriptive study using the MedicineInsight database.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Lung cancer screening knowledge, opinions and attitudes among healthcare professionals in Estonia prior to national program initiation.Journal of public health research · 2026Article
- Review
- Systems mapping: a novel approach to national lung cancer screening implementation in Australia.Translational lung cancer research · 2024Review
- Review
- Article
- Review
- What Goes into Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening? Factors Associated with Clinician Judgments of Suitability for Screening.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2024Article
- LungCARE: Encouraging Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening-a Randomized Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Review
- Lung Cancer Screening in People With HIV: A Mixed-Methods Study of Patient and Provider Perspectives.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Factors associated with lung cancer risk factor documentation.The American journal of managed care · 2023Observational
- A protocol for a cluster randomized trial of care delivery models to improve the quality of smoking cessation and shared decision making for lung cancer screening.Contemporary clinical trials · 2023Article
- Outcomes of Shared Decision-Making for Low-Dose Screening for Lung Cancer in an Academic Medical Center.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Opportunities and Challenges in Lung Cancer Screening Implementation: A Narrative Review.Current challenges in thoracic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleLung cancer screening has a mortality benefit to high-risk smokers, but implementation remains suboptimal. Providers represent the key entry point to screening, and an understanding of provider perspectives on lung cancer screening is necessary to improve referral and overall implementation.
objectivesThe objective of this study was to understand knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to screening in a diverse group of referring pulmonologists and primary care providers.
methodsWe conducted an electronic survey of primary care and pulmonary providers within a tertiary care medical center across different practice sites. The survey covered the following domains: 1) beliefs and assessment of evidence, 2) knowledge of lung cancer screening and guidelines, 3) current screening practices, 4) barriers and facilitators, and 5) demographic and practice characteristics.
resultsThe 196 participants included 80% primary care clinicians and 19% pulmonologists (1% others). Forty-one percent practiced at university-based or affiliated clinics, 47% at county hospital-based clinics, and 12% at other or unidentified sites. The majority endorsed lung cancer screening effectiveness (74%); however, performance on knowledge-based assessments of screening eligibility, documentation, and nodule management was suboptimal. Key barriers included inadequate time (36%), inadequate staffing (36%), and patients having too many other illnesses to address screening (38%). Decision aids, which are used at the point of referral, were commonly identified both as important lung cancer screening clinical facilitators (51%) and as provider knowledge facilitators (59%). There were several differences by provider specialty, including primary care providers more frequently reporting time constraints and their patients having too many other illnesses to address screening as significant barriers to lung cancer screening.
conclusionsProviders endorsed the benefits of lung cancer screening, but there are limitations in provider knowledge of key screening components. The most frequently reported barriers to screening represent a lack of clinical time or resources to address lung cancer screening in clinical practice. Facilitators for nodule management as well as point-of-care referral materials may be helpful in reducing knowledge gaps and the clinical burden of referral. These are all modifiable factors, which could be addressed to increase screening referral. Differences in attitudes and barriers by specialty should also be considered to optimize screening implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.