Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29403320›Full record

ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2017

Opinions, practice patterns, and perceived barriers to lung cancer screening among attending and resident primary care physicians.

Louise M Henderson, Laura M Jones, Mary W Marsh, Alison T Brenner, Adam O Goldstein, Thad S Benefield, Mikael Anne Greenwood-Hickman, Paul L Molina, M Patricia Rivera, Daniel S Reuland

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04083859 (A Pragmatic Randomized-Controlled Trial of a Digital Outreach Intervention for Lung Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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.

NCT04083859 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

A Pragmatic Randomized-Controlled Trial of a Digital Outreach Intervention for Lung Cancer Screening: mPATH-Lung (Mobile Patient Technology for Health-Lung)

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2022 to 2024Enrolled26,998ConditionsLung CancerArmsmPATH-Lung, Lung health video
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Louise M HendersonDepartment of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Laura M JonesDepartment of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Mary W MarshDepartment of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Alison T BrennerDepartment of Medicine.
Adam O GoldsteinDepartment of Family Medicine, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Thad S BenefieldDepartment of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Mikael Anne Greenwood-HickmanKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Paul L MolinaDepartment of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
M Patricia RiveraDepartment of Medicine.
Daniel S ReulandDepartment of Medicine.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · US

Funding

Developing a Lung Cancer Screening Registry in a State with a High Smoking RateR21CA175983 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HENDERSON, LOUISE · 2014 to 2015
$364k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA175983
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high-risk patients in December 2013. We compared lung cancer screening-related opinions and practices among attending and resident primary care physicians (PCPs).

methodsIn 2015, we conducted a 23-item survey among physicians at a large academic medical center. We surveyed 100 resident PCPs (30% response rate) and 86 attending PCPs (49% response rate) in Family Medicine and Internal Medicine. The questions focused on physicians' opinions, knowledge of recommendations, self-reported practice patterns, and barriers to lung cancer screening. In 2015 and 2016, we compared responses among attending versus resident PCPs using chi-square/Fisher's exact tests and 2-samples

resultsCompared with resident PCPs, attending PCPs were older (mean age =47 vs 30 years) and more likely to be male (54% vs 37%). Over half of both groups concurred that inconsistent recommendations make deciding whether or not to screen difficult. A substantial proportion in both groups indicated that they were undecided about the benefit of lung cancer screening for patients (43% attending PCPs and 55% resident PCPs). The majority of attending and resident PCPs agreed that barriers to screening included limited time during patient visits (62% and 78%, respectively), cost to patients (74% and 83%, respectively), potential for complications (53% and 70%, respectively), and a high false-positive rate (67% and 73%, respectively).

conclusionThere was no evidence to suggest that attending and resident PCPs had differing opinions about lung cancer screening. For population-based implementation of lung cancer screening, physicians and trainees will need resources and time to address the benefits and harms with their patients.

Indexed as

benefitsharmslow dose computed tomographylung neoplasmsmass screeningphysician behaviorquestionnairessurveys

Identifiers

PMID29403320
PMCPMC5784747
OpenAlexW2784718719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.