ArticleJAMA internal medicine2018
Evaluating Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening.
Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 121 papers, 6 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)
Understanding Rural Patient and Provide Preferences for Mobile Lung Cancer Screening Clinics
Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial
Who cites it
121 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Time to Benefit for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Survival Meta-Analysis.American journal of preventive medicine · 2025Pooled it
- To what extent do general practitioners involve patients in decision-making? A systematic review of studies using the OPTION-instrument.Primary health care research & development · 2025Pooled it
- Guideline
- Guideline
- A Comparison of Web-Based Cancer Risk Calculators That Inform Shared Decision-making for Lung Cancer Screening.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Enhancement of Patient-Centered Lung Cancer Screening: The MyLungHealth Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA oncology · 2026Trial
- Providing Reminders and Education Prior to lung cancer screening: Feasibility and acceptability of a multilevel approach to address disparities in lung cancer screening.Translational behavioral medicine · 2025Trial
- Supporting community translation of lung cancer screening: A web-based decision aid to support informed decision making.Translational behavioral medicine · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Effect of Incidental Findings Information on Lung Cancer Screening Intent: a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Trial
- Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making by Persons Who Smoke: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2020Trial
- Impact of a Lung Cancer Screening Information Film on Informed Decision-making: A Randomized Trial.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2019Trial
- Shared clinical decision-making for vaccination: A view through the lens of mid-adult HPV vaccination.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Feasibility and acceptability of an everyday patient-centered discussion model for primary care: An exploratory, single-center study in the VA primary care setting.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Informing the cultural adaptation of a lung cancer screening shared decision-making and navigation intervention for Hispanic adults: a qualitative study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Development, Co-Design and Pilot Testing of Resources to Support Informed Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening in Australia: A Study Engaging Diverse Communities and Expert Healthcare Professionals.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- A Comparative Study of Rapid Fresh Pathology Imaging and Standard FFPE H&E Histopathology: A High Concordance in the Evaluation of Lung and Breast Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
61 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that shared decision making (SDM) involving a thorough discussion of benefits and harms should occur between clinicians and patients before initiating lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services require an SDM visit using a decision aid as a prerequisite for LCS coverage. However, little is known about how SDM about LCS occurs in practice. Objective: To assess the quality of SDM about the initiation of LCS in clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: A qualitative content analysis was performed of transcribed conversations between primary care or pulmonary care physicians and 14 patients presumed to be eligible for LCS, recorded between April 1, 2014, and March 1, 2018, that were identified within a large database. Main Outcomes and Measures: Independent observer ratings of communication behaviors of physicians using the OPTION (Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making) scale, a validated 12-item measure of SDM (total score, 0-100 points, where 0 indicates no evidence of SDM and 100 indicates evidence of SDM at the highest skill level); time spent discussing LCS during visits; and evidence of decision aid use. Results: A total of 14 conversations about initiating LCS were identified; 9 patients were women, and 5 patients were men; the mean (SD) patient age was 63.9 (5.1) years; 7 patients had Medicare, and 8 patients were current smokers. Half the conversations were conducted by primary care physicians. The mean total OPTION score for the 14 LCS conversations was 6 on a scale of 0 to 100 (range, 0-17). None of the conversations met the minimum skill criteria for 8 of the 12 SDM behaviors. Physicians universally recommended LCS. Discussion of harms (such as false positives and their sequelae or overdiagnosis) was virtually absent. The mean total visit length of a discussion was 13:07 minutes (range, 3:48-27:09 minutes). The mean time spent discussing LCS was 0:59 minute (range, 0:16-2:19 minutes), or 8% of the total visit time (range, 1%-18%). There was no evidence that decision aids or other patient education materials for LCS were used. Conclusions and Relevance: In this small sample of recorded encounters about initiating LCS, the observed quality of SDM was poor and explanation of potential harms of screening was virtually nonexistent. Time spent discussing LCS was minimal, and there was no evidence that decision aids were used. Although these findings are preliminary, they raise concerns that SDM for LCS in practice may be far from what is intended by guidelines.
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.