Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29179686›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2017

Piloting electronic screening forms in primary care: findings from a mixed methods study to identify patients eligible for low dose CT lung cancer screening.

Mary Ann O'Brien, Frank Sullivan, Andrea Carson, Rabiya Siddiqui, Saddaf Syed, Lawrence Paszat

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Knowledge translation strategies to enhance lung cancer screening programme implementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Lung cancer screening: targeting the hard to reach-a review.Translational lung cancer research · 2021
    Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mary Ann O'BrienDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Fifth Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada. maryann.obrien@utoronto.ca.
Frank SullivanDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Fifth Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Andrea CarsonDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Fifth Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Rabiya SiddiquiDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Fifth Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Saddaf SyedDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Fifth Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Lawrence PaszatSunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent evidence suggests that screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans significantly reduces mortality from lung cancer. However, optimal methods to identify potentially eligible patients in primary care are not known. Using brief electronic screening forms administered prior to a primary care visit is a strategy to identify high risk, asymptomatic patients eligible for LDCT screening. The objective of this study was to compare the acceptability and feasibility of using brief electronic versus paper screening forms to identify eligible patients at high risk of developing lung cancer in primary care.

methodsA mixed method pilot comparative study was conducted in primary care. Practices were allocated to an electronic form (e-form) group or a paper-based form (p-form) group. Allocation was randomly assigned for the first practice then by alternation. Patients in the e-form practices completed forms at home via the web or in the waiting room on a tablet. Patients in p-form practices completed forms in waiting rooms. Interviews were conducted with patients, administrators, and primary care physicians (PCPs) about their experiences.

resultsSix of 30 (20%) eligible practices agreed to participate. Over the 16-week study period, a total of 831 of an expected 1442 patients (58%) aged 55-74 years were enrolled; 573/690 (83%) patients in the e-form group and 258/752 (34%) in the p-form group. Of the 573 participants in the e-form group, 335 (58%) completed forms via the web; 238 (29%) did so via tablet. Twenty-four interviews were conducted with 15 patients, 5 administrative staff and 4 PCPs. Patients were willing to discuss lung cancer screening eligibility with their PCP. Staff members expressed low administrative burden except for an extra step to link appointment information to patient demographics to identify eligible patients. PCPs indicated that forms were reminders to discuss smoking cessation. PCPs in the e-form group reported that patients asked questions about screening.

conclusionThere was fairly low uptake by primary care practices. For e-forms to be feasible in practice workflow, electronic medical record software needs to link appointment information with patient eligibility requirements. The use of brief pre-consultation electronic screening forms for LDCT eligibility encouraged PCPs to discuss smoking cessation with patients.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansInternetLung NeoplasmsMaleMedical Record LinkageMiddle AgedPaperPatient SatisfactionPilot ProjectsPrimary Health CareRisk FactorsHealth services researchLow dose computed tomography (LDCT)Lung cancer screeningPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID29179686
PMCPMC5704529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.