Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29468601›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2018

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision-making in Early Adopting Lung Cancer Screening Programs: a Qualitative Study.

Renda Soylemez Wiener, Elisa Koppelman, Rendelle Bolton, Karen E Lasser, Belinda Borrelli, David H Au, Christopher G Slatore, Jack A Clark, Hasmeena Kathuria

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
21.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 113 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. When Patient-Centered Care Initiatives Align: Integrating VA Whole Health and Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2025
    Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Renda Soylemez WienerCenter for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, ENRM VA Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA. renda.wiener@va.gov.
Elisa KoppelmanCenter for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, ENRM VA Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA.
Rendelle BoltonCenter for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, ENRM VA Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA.
Karen E LasserBoston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Belinda BorrelliHenry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
David H AuCenter of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA.
Christopher G SlatoreCenter to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA.
Jack A ClarkCenter for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, ENRM VA Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA.
Hasmeena KathuriaThe Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Boston University · USBedford VA Research Corporation · USBrandeis University · USOregon Health & Science University · USVA Puget Sound Health Care System · US

Funding

Project-005UL1TR001430 · NCATS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI BAIR-MERRITT, MEGAN H, CENTER, DAVID M. · 2015 to 2024
$52.3M
Progressing towards implementation of lung cancer screening in the VHAI21HX001179 · VA · EDITH NOURSE ROGERS MEMORIAL VETERANS HOSPITAL · PI WIENER, RENDA SOYLEMEZ · 2015 to 2015
–
HSRD VA I21 HX001179NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001430
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings.

objectiveTo characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making.

designQualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups.

participantsWe enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). APPROACH: Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. KEY

resultsClinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making.

conclusionsDue to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.

Indexed as

Decision MakingQualitative ResearchEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMalePatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysician's RoleRandom Allocationlung cancer screeningpatient-clinician communicationshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID29468601
PMCPMC6025674
OpenAlexW2788341790

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.