ArticlePreventive medicine reports2018
A national survey of primary care physicians: Perceptions and practices of low-dose CT lung cancer screening.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Facilitators and Barriers to Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening: A Framework-Driven Systematic Review.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Patient Adherence to Screening for Lung Cancer in the US: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2020Pooled it
- Innovative approaches for lung cancer screening and interception.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Lung cancer screening experiences among patients with a smoking history and primary care providers: a qualitative study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Lung Cancer Screening in Family Members and Peers of Patients With Lung Cancer: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Review
- Empowering minoritized Alabamians screened for lung cancer-The Alabama Lung Cancer Awareness Screening and Education (ALCASE) project.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- "We need to work towards it, whatever it takes."-participation factors in the acceptability and feasibility of lung cancer screening in Australia: the perspectives of key stakeholders.Translational lung cancer research · 2024Article
- Development and Evaluation of Brief Web-Based Education for Primary Care Providers to Address Inequities in Lung Cancer Screening and Smoking Cessation Treatment.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Changing recommendations for lung cancer screening: National Lung Cancer Roundtable member perspectives.Cancer · 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
- Lung cancer screening in rural primary care practices in Colorado: time for a more team-based approach?BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Development and testing of "Is Lung Cancer Screening for You?" A computer-based decision aid.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Article
- Implementing physician education to increase lung cancer screening uptake.Lung cancer management · 2023Article
- A narrative review of lung cancer screening in underserved populations.Current challenges in thoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Priorities for improvement across cancer and non-cancer related preventive services among rural and non-rural clinicians.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Assessing Information Available for Health Professionals and Potential Participants on Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR cancer · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Soon after the National Lung Screening Trial, organizations began to endorse low-dose computed tomography (LCDT) screening for lung cancer in high-risk patients. Concerns about the risks versus benefits of screening, as well as the logistics of identifying and referring eligible patients, remained among physicians. This study aimed to examine primary care physicians' knowledge, attitudes, referral practices, and associated barriers regarding LDCT screening. We administered a national survey of primary care physicians in the United States between September 2016 and April 2017. Physicians received up to 3 mailings, 1 follow-up email, and received varying incentives to complete the survey. Overall, 293 physicians participated, for a response rate of 13%. We used weighted descriptive statistics to characterize participants and their responses. Over half of the respondents correctly reported that the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends LDCT screening for high-risk patients. Screening recommendations for patients not meeting high-risk criteria varied. Although 75% agreed that the benefits of LDCT screening outweigh the risks, fewer agreed that there is substantial evidence that screening reduces mortality (50%). The most commonly reported barriers to ordering screening included prior authorization requirements (57%), lack of insurance coverage (53%), and coverage denials (31%). The most frequently cited barrier to conducting LDCT screening shared decision making was patients' competing health priorities (42%). Given the impact of physician recommendations on cancer screening utilization, further understanding of physicians' LDCT screening attitudes and shared decision-making practices is needed. Clinical practice and policy changes are also needed to engage more patients in screening discussions.
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.